Supermajority requirements for ballot measures
A supermajority requirement is a condition for approval for certain ballot measure elections where more than a simple majority of voters must vote in favor of a ballot measure for the measre to be approved.
Of the 49 states that provide for legislatively referred constitutional amendments, 11 states require a supermajority vote or other threshold for approval.
Supermajority requirements are also applied to specific ballot measure topics, such as tax increases, lotteries, or changing vote requirements.
(1) an initiative to require new state taxes proposed by the state legislature to be enacted via a two-thirds legislative vote and voter approval and new local taxes to be enacted via a two-thirds vote of the electorate
(2) a legislatively referred amendment lowering the vote threshold from 66.67% to 55% for local special taxes to fund housing projects and public infrastructure.
Requirements by state for constitutional amendments
Of the 49 states that require voter approval for constitutional amendments, 11 states require a supermajority vote on the amendment or some rule that combines different criteria. Delaware is the one state where voter approval is not required for state constitutional amendments.
55 percent supermajority
- Colorado. For a referred or initiated amendment to win in Colorado, it must win a supermajority vote of 55 percent of those voting on the question, according to Section 1 of Article V and Section 2 of Article XIX of the Colorado Constitution. This change was made via Amendment 71 in 2016.
60 supermajority
- Illinois. For a constitutional amendment to win in Illinois, it must win a supermajority vote of 60 percent of those voting on the question or a majority of those who cast a ballot for any office in that election.
- Florida. For a constitutional amendment to win in Florida, it must win a supermajority vote of 60 percent of those voting on the question, according to Section 5 of Article XI. This change was made via Amendment 3 in 2006.
2/3rds supermajority
- New Hampshire: A proposed amendment must be approved by 2/3rds of those voting in order to become part of the state's constitution.
Other requirements
- In Hawaii, a proposed amendment is considered to be approved if:
- It is approved by a majority of all the votes tallied upon the question if this majority constitutes at least 50% of the total vote cast at the election, or,
- If approved at a special election by a majority of all the votes tallied upon the question, if this majority consists of at least 30% of the total number of registered voters in the state at that time.
- Illinois. For a constitutional amendment to win in Illinois, it must win a supermajority vote of 60% of those voting on the question or a majority of those who cast a ballot for any office in that election.
- Minnesota. Proposed constitutional amendments in Minnesota require majority approval from all voters casting a ballot in the election. In other words, leaving a constitutional amendment question blank on the ballot is equivalent to voting "no" in Minnesota.
- Tennessee. A proposed amendment in Tennessee must earn a majority of those voting on the amendment, and "a majority of all the citizens of the state voting for governor."
- In Massachusetts, a proposed amendment can be passed by majority vote, provided that the total number of votes cast on the amendment equals at least 30% of the total votes cast in the election.
- In Mississippi, an amendment is considered approved if it receives a majority vote, provided that the total number of votes cast on the initiative equals at least 40% of the total votes cast in the election.
- In Nebraska, a proposed amendment becomes part of the Nebraska Constitution if it wins a majority vote and it wins the votes of at least 35% of those voting in the election for any office.
- In Wyoming, a proposed amendment must be approved by a majority of all voters casting ballots at the election.
- Note: In Utah, constitutional amendments put on the ballot by a constitutional convention require a majority vote of all voters at the election, but amendments referred to the ballot by the legislature require a majority vote of all voters on the measure.
Constitutional amendments of local applicability
In Louisiana, a simple majority vote is required to approve an amendment, unless the amendment affects five or fewer parishes, in which case it has to be approved by a majority statewide vote and by a majority vote in the parishes it affects. The same thing is true for an amendment that affects five or fewer municipalities in the state.
In Maryland, Article XIV of the Maryland Constitution allows for the possibility that some proposed constitutional amendments may apply to only one county (or the City of Baltimore, which is governed independently of a county structure). In this case, Article XIV says that in order to become part of the constitution, the proposed amendment must be approved by a majority vote not just statewide, but specifically in the county (or Baltimore) to which it exclusively applies.
In Alabama, there is a process for certain amendments determined to be of local applicability to be approved only in the county to which the amendment applies without requiring statewide voter approval.
Constitutional conventions
- See also: Constitutional convention
Forty-four states have rules that govern how, in their state, a constitutional convention can be called. In most (but not all) of these states, the voters have to weigh in on the question. In one state, Maryland, the number of people voting "yes" needs to be more than 50% of the total number of Marylanders who vote overall, not just a simple majority of those voting on the question.
Requirements by state for specific topics
Arizona
Arizona requires a 60% vote for voters to pass ballot measures to approve taxes. Voters approved this requirement via Proposition 132 in 2022.
Oregon
In Oregon, a ballot measure proposing a supermajority vote, such as a 60% vote, on ballot measures must be passed by the same vote threshold, such as 60%, as the measure itself proposes. Voters passed a constitutional amendment establishing this requirement in 1998.
Utah
Utah requires a two-thirds (66.67%) vote for the approval of any initiatives concerning the taking of wildlife. Voters adopted this requirement with the passage of Proposition 5 in 1998.
Washington
Washington requires 60% supermajority approval from all voters casting a ballot on initiatives or referendums related to lotteries. Other questions require simple majority approval to be enacted. This requirement was adopted with the passage of Washington SJR 5 in 1972.
Legislation
The following is a list of bills passed, beginning in 2016, related to supermajority requirements for ballot measures.
2023
- Assembly Constitutional Amendment 13: The constitutional amendment requires voter approval on November 5, 2024. The constitutional amendment was designed to require that initiatives that seek to adopt or increase supermajority requirements for ballot measures must pass by the same supermajority vote requirement being proposed. ACA 13 was also designed to allow local governments to refer non-binding questions to the ballot. ACA 13 requires voter approval on November 5, 2024.[1]
2017
- Colorado Senate Bill 17-152: SB 17-152 was designed to implement changes to the state's rules governing constitutional amendments that were approved in 2016 by Amendment 71. Amendment 71 implemented a distribution requirement for initiated constitutional amendments and a 55 percent supermajority requirement for all constitutional amendments.
2016
- Colorado Amendment 71: The amendment mplemented a distribution requirement for initiated constitutional amendments and a supermajority requirement for all constitutional amendments.
Ballotpedia tracked 23 ballot measures related to supermajority requirements between 1912 and 2023. Twelve measures were approved, and 11 measures were defeated.
| State | Year | Measure | Type | Description | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ohio | 2023 | Issue 1 | LRCA | Increase to 60% for constitutional amendments |  |
| Arizona | 2022 | Proposition 132 | LRCA | Increase to 60% for tax increase-related measures |  |
| Arkansas | 2022 | Issue 2 | LRCA | Increase to 60% for constitutional amendments and citizen-initiated measures | |
| South Dakota | 2022 | Amendment C | LRCA | Increase to 60% for constitutional amendments and citizen-initiated measures | |
| South Dakota | 2018 | Amendment X | LRCA | Increase to 60% for tax increase-related and certain appropriations-related measures | |
| Colorado | 2016 | Amendment 71 | CICA | Increase to 55% for constitutional amendments | |
| Washington | 2007 | HJR 4204 | LRCA | Decrease from 60% to a simple majority for voters to approve school district property tax measures | |
| Florida | 2006 | Amendment 3 | LRCA | Increase to 60% for constitutional amendments | |
| Arizona | 2000 | Proposition 102 | LRCA | Increase to 66.67% for hunting-related measures | |
| Oregon | 1998 | Measure 63 | CICA | Require that a measure proposing a supermajority vote be passed by the same vote threshold | |
| Oregon | 1996 | Measure 46 | CICA | Change from a simple majority vote to a majority of registered voters for a tax-related measure | |
| Utah | 1998 | Proposition 5 | LRCA | Increase to 66.67% for hunting-related measures | |
| Idaho | 1980 | SJR 112 | LRCA | Change from majority of total votes cast for governor to a simple majority vote on an initiative | |
| Oklahoma | 1974 | State Question 495 | LRCA | Change from majority of total ballots cast to a simple majority vote on an initiative | |
| Oklahoma | 1974 | State Question 496 | LRCA | Change from majority of total ballots cast to a simple majority vote on a constitutional amendment | |
| Washington | 1972 | SJR 5 | LRCA | Require 60% for ballot measures to establish lotteries | |
| Idaho | 1934 | HJR 7 | LRCA | Change from majority of total votes cast for governor to a simple majority vote on an initiative | |
| Nebraska | 1920 | Amendment 39 | CCR | Change from a majority of total ballots cast to a simple majority vote on a constitutional amendment, provided that 35% of those who vote in the election vote on the amendment | |
| Arizona | 1916 | Measure Nos. 100-101 | LRCA | Change from a simple majority vote on an initiative to a majority of total ballots cast | |
| California | 1915 | Proposition 7 | LRCA | Increase to 66.67% for citizen-initiated bond measures | |
| Ohio | 1912 | Amendment | CRCA | Change from majority of total ballots cast to a simple majority vote on a constitutional amendment | |
| Oregon | 1912 | Measure Nos. 310-311 | LRCA | Change from a simple majority vote on a constitutional amendment to a majority of total ballots cast | |
| Oregon | 1912 | Measure Nos. 322-323 | CICA | Change from a simple majority vote on an initiative to a majority of total ballots cast | |
Arguments
The following is a list of claims and arguments about supermajority requirements for ballot measures.
Support
Below is a selection of claims and arguments that have been made in support of supermajority requirements for ballot measures.
Claim: The outcome of ballot measure elections are more difficult to change so the threshold should be higher
- Matt Qvortrup and Leah Trueblood in the International Journal of Constitutional Law said, "The irreversibility and all-or-nothing character of referendums make special majority requirements especially important. Specifically, this article has argued that (i) there is always a case for turnout thresholds in referendums, and (ii) there are further arguments for special majority requirements, particularly in deeply divided societies as part of the process of consociationalism, but it will depend on the context."[2]
- Robert Alt, president of The Buckeye Institute, who supported Ohio Issue 1 (2023), said, "Supermajority requirements ensure that people who are out of favor with the ruling class have protections from the whims of the majority."[3]
Opposition
Below is a selection of claims and arguments that have been made in opposition to supermajority requirements for ballot measures.
Claim: Supermajority requirements make it harder for ballot initiatives to be successful
- Sarah Walker, director of policy and legal advocacy for the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center and an opponent of Ohio Issue 1 (2023), said, "The whole point of ballot initiatives is to be a tool, a check and a balance on the power of the legislature in case they aren’t being responsive [to the public]. This is a direct attempt to limit what goes on the ballot, or what may be successful."[4]
Claim: Supermajority requirements allow the minority to rule
- Ohio State Sen. Paula Hicks-Hudson (D-11), Sen. Vernon Sykes (D-28), Rep. Dontavius Jarrells (D-1), Rep. Bride Rose Sweeney (D-16), and Rep. Dani Isaacsohn (D-24), who were against Ohio Issue 1 (2023), said, "It means just 40% of voters can block any issue, putting 40% of voters in charge of decision-making for the majority."[5]
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Assembly Constitutional Amendment 13," accessed September 18, 2023
- ↑ International Journal of Constitutional Law, "The case for supermajority requirements in referendums," March 17, 2023
- ↑ The Columbus Dispatch, "Buckeye Institute CEO: Vote 'yes' on Issue 1 to 'fend off the Californication of Ohio'," July 27, 2023
- ↑ New Republic, "Ohio Republicans’ Devious Plot to Stop Voters From Legalizing Abortion," July 12, 2023
- ↑ Ohio Secretary of State, "Vote No on Issue 1," accessed June 2, 2023
