Changes in 2017 to laws governing ballot measures

2018 →

← 2016

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
• Analysis of 2024 changes to laws governing ballot measures
Local
• Laws governing local ballot measures
Learn about Ballotpedia's election legislation tracker.
2024 » « 2023

This page lists changes and proposed changes in 2017 to laws governing the initiative and referendum process. It also lists changes and proposed changes to laws concerning legislative referrals, ballot measure-related campaign finance, and other laws related to ballot measures and recall.

Ballotpedia covered 213 bills concerning laws surrounding ballot measures and recall that were proposed or reconsidered during the 2017 legislative sessions of 37 states. Of the bills tracked, 25 were approved, 107 failed or died in committee, and 81 were explicitly carried over or remained not approved or rejected in states that carry over bills from odd-numbered years to even-numbered years.

Given the complexity of the initiative process and ballot measure law, these laws can address a wide range of ballot measure- and initiative-related law. These laws include proposals to make the following changes:

• Establish the processes of citizen initiative, referendum, or recall in states that don't have them;
• Lift restrictions on the processes for initiatives, referendums, or recall;
• Add restrictions on the processes for initiatives, referendums, or recall;
  • Restrictions proposed in 2017 include the addition of distribution requirements, an increase in signature requirements, the removal of prohibitions against legislative amendment or repeal of initiatives, and others.
• Change campaign finance rules for committees filed to support or oppose ballot measures;
  • Three state legislatures considered bills to ban or restrict out-of-state contributions to ballot measure campaigns.
• Add restrictions on the power of local authority, thereby preventing local ballot measures concerning topics such as LGBT issues, plastic bag bans, and fracking restrictions;
• Alter supermajority vote requirements—either at the ballot or in the legislature; and
• Change the state's laws governing direct democracy in any other way.

The map below shows states (colored in blue) in which legislators proposed bills related to ballot measure and recall law in 2017. States in which more bills were proposed are displayed in a darker shade:

• Legislation by state
  • Alabama
  • Arizona
  • Arkansas
  • Califonria
  • Colorado
  • Connecticut
  • Florida
  • Georgien
  • Hawaii
  • Idaho
  • Illinois
  • Louisiana
  • Maine
  • Maryland
  • Massachusetts
  • Minnesota
  • Mississippi
  • Missouri
  • Nevada
  • New Jersey
  • New York
  • New Mexico
  • North Dakota
  • Oklahoma
  • Oregon
  • Rhode Island
  • South Dakota
  • Tennessee
  • Texas
  • Utah
  • Washington
  • West Virginia
  • Wyoming
• Approved legislation
• See also
• References

HIGHLIGHTS

Arkansas, Arizona, Maine, and South Dakota considered laws to restrict initiative processes following the approval of 2016 initiatives about marijuana, minimum wage, tax increases, payday lending restrictions, law enforcement, campaign finance laws, and elections.

Bills to prohibit or restrict out-of-state spending on ballot measure campaigns were introduced—but ultimately not approved—in Arizona, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

In 2017, 24 bills were approved, including a pay-per-signature ban, a strict compliance requirement, a fiscal impact requirement, and the creation of initiative and referendum task forces.

What happened in 2017?

Arizona bills and veto referendum efforts

Following the approval of a $12 per hour minimum wage and paid time off initiative in November 2016 by Arizona voters, the Arizona State Legislature passed a pair of bills that add restrictions to the initiative process.

• Arizona House Bill 2404 was designed to prohibit paying circulators according to the number of signatures collected, to make paying circulators on a per-signature basis a class 1 misdemeanor, to and increase the number of days that legal challenges to the registration of circulators can commence from five days—including non-business days—to 10 business days after signatures are filed. Two veto referendum signature petition drives targeting HB 2404 were started, but no signatures were submitted by the deadline. The introduced version of the bill was written to also require all paid circulators to register with the state, to make certain disclosures, to complete a training program provided by the state, to and pay a registration fee; require initiative proponents to post bonds for paid signature gatherers ranging from $10,000 to $50,000; and create an Initiative and Referendum Integrity Fund. These provisions were removed through amendments, however. Provisions similar to them were included in separate legislative efforts, which were not approved.

• Arizona House Bill 2244 was designed to require strict compliance with all rules surrounding the initiative process. It was written to allow petition signatures to be rejected based on technical deficiencies. The bill was approved by the Arizona State Senate on April 12, 2017, and it was approved by the Arizona House of Representatives and transmitted to the governor on April 13, 2017. A veto referendum signature petition drive targeting HB 2244 was started, but no signatures were submitted by the deadline. A lawsuit was also filed against the bill but was thrown out based on the failure of plaintiffs to show damages. Plaintiffs argued that the strict compliance rule would be used to throw out signatures based on technicalities such as a date exceeding the box allotted for it on the petition sheet. The judge ruled that, since no signatures had been thrown out based on HB 2244, plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge it.

South Dakota task force

The South Dakota State Legislature approved House Bill 1141 during its 2017 legislative session. The bill established a task force to investigate the state's initiative and veto referendum processes and suggest changes to the legislature for consideration in the 2018 legislative session. Any changes suggested that require a constitutional amendment would require the legislature to refer the proposal to the voters. Statute changes could be passed directly by the legislature. As of October 6, 2017, the 13-member committee had met four times. A roster of the members of the task force is available here.

The following requirements for the selection of members of the task force were set by law:

" Three members of the House of Representatives to be appointed by the speaker of the House, two of whom to be members of the Republican party and one of whom to be a member of the Democrat party; Three members of the Senate to be appointed by the president pro tempore, two of whom to be members of the Republican party and one of whom to be a member of the Democrat party; The secretary of state, serving ex officio and without a vote; The attorney general, serving ex officio and without a vote; Two members to be appointed by the Governor. One member shall have a business background and one member shall have an agricultural background and no more than one member may be from the same political party; Two members of the Board of Elections to be appointed by the board and no more than one member may be from the same political party; One member to be appointed by the speaker of the House who is a faculty member of a political science department of a college or university in the state and is either registered as an independent or a member of a minority party; One member who is a representative of and to be appointed by the South Dakota Municipal League; and One member who is a representative of and to be appointed by the South Dakota Association of County Commissioners. ”

The most significant of the task force's votes were on the following two drafts:

• 7-6 against recommending a restriction requiring a two-thirds (66.67%) vote in the state legislature to amend or repeal citizen initiatives. As of 2017, South Dakota was one of 11 states with no restrictions on how soon or with what majority the legislature can repeal or amend initiated state statutes. The proposal was Draft #114.
  • Measure 22, a 2016 initiative related to campaign-finance and elections, was repealed by the legislature on February 2, 2017, after being approved by voters in November 2016.
  • Although the task force rejected this draft, Rep. Karen L. Soli (D-15) and Sen. Reynold Nesiba (D-15) voted in favor of it, and the committee discussed the possibility of introducing the legislation despite its rejection by the full task force.
• 11-2 in favor of recommending Draft #81 to the legislature, a change that would require a 55 percent supermajority vote to approve constitutional amendments at the ballot box. The task force decided that Draft #81 would be introduced in the state Senate and that the prime sponsors would be task force members Sen. Jim Bolin (R-16) and Rep. Tim Reed (R-7). Since Draft #81 proposed amending the state constitution, state law required approval by a simple majority of all members in each chamber of the legislature during the 2018 legislative session and voter approval in November 2018 for the change to be made.
  • Four other states, as of 2017, had a supermajority requirement to pass constitutional amendments. Moreover, of 2017, seven other states had a double majority requirement or some other requirement.

The task force voted on other proposals and approved nine of them, which means they were set to be recommended to state lawmakers during the 2018 legislative session. It approved and recommended the following draft legislation:

• Draft #77 was designed to standardize the petition format and size for all initiatives and veto referendums. It was approved unanimously. The proposal was set to be introduced in the state House, and Rep. Reed and Sen. Nesiba said they would act as the primary sponsors of the bill.
• Draft #82 was designed to require the Legislative Research Council (LRC) to draft fiscal notes for all initiatives if they have a fiscal impact—an existing requirement that has some situational exceptions. It was approved and recommended by a vote of 12-1. The proposal was set to be introduced in the state Senate, and Sen. Ernie Otten (R-6) and Rep. Kent Peterson (R-19) said they would act as the primary sponsors of the bill.
• Draft #83 was designed to standardize the explanation of a yes and a no vote for all initiatives and veto referendums. It was approved and recommended unanimously. The proposal was set to be introduced in the state House, and Rep. Peterson and Sen. Bolin said they would act as the primary sponsors of the bill. Existing law was designed to require the attorney general to create the explanation without any set template. The proposed language was:
  • For initiated constitutional amendments: "Vote 'Yes' to adopt the amendment" and "Vote 'No' to leave the Constitution as it is."
  • For initiated state statutes: "Vote 'Yes' to adopt the initiated measure" and "Vote 'No' to leave South Dakota law as it is."
  • For veto referendums: "Vote 'Yes' to repeal the Act of the Legislature" and "Vote 'No' to allow the Act of the Legislature to become law."
• Draft #84 was designed to establish that, if measures that directly conflict or have clearly apparent conflicting intentions are both approved, the one that receives more yes votes will supersede the other in all areas of conflict. The proposal was designed to apply this to both a pair of initiated statutes and a pair of amendments. Constitutional amendments always take precedence over statutes in any area of conflict. It was approved and recommended unanimously. The proposal was set to be introduced in the state Senate, and Rep. Reed and Sen. Nesiba said they would act as the primary sponsors of the bill.
• Draft #97 was designed to allow the Legislative Research Council (LRC) 15 business days instead of 15 days total to provide comments on submitted initiatives and to require the LRC to give comments and suggestions on the substance of the initiative rather than comments only regarding style and form. It was approved and recommended unanimously. The proposal was set to be introduced in the state House, and Rep. Soli and Sen. Nesiba said they would act as the primary sponsors of the bill.
• Draft #99 was designed to remove the requirement that the full text of any proposed initiated statute or initiated amendment be included on the petition sheet and add the requirement that all petitioners must make the full text available to all signers on the already-required separate form containing the title, explanatory statement, fiscal impact statement, and petitioner information. It was approved and recommended by a vote of 10-3. The proposal was set to be introduced in the state Senate, and Rep. Soli and Sen. Nesiba said they would act as the primary sponsors of the bill.
• Draft #96 was designed to establish that an initiative could be submitted for review by the LRC no more than six months prior to when the initiative could be circulated. Initiatives can begin circulation for signature gathering two years before the targeted election, and signatures must be submitted one year prior to the election. It was approved and recommended by a vote of 11-2. The proposal was set to be introduced in the state Senate, and Rep. Soli and Sen. Nesiba said they would act as the primary sponsors of the bill.
• Draft #100 was designed to automatically require the LRC to prepare a fiscal statement if it determines one is necessary instead of requiring initiative sponsors to request it. As of 2017 in South Dakota, a fiscal statement was required when an initiative is submitted to the secretary of state for final approval for circulation if the LRC determines that the initiative would have an impact. It was also written to remove the requirement for a separate prison cost estimate. The proposal was approved and recommended unanimously. It was set to be introduced in the state Senate, and Rep. Soli and Sen. Otten said they would act as the primary sponsors of the bill.
• Draft #108 was designed to establish an eleven-member citizen initiative review board—selected by the board of elections and with at least two but no more than four current or former legislators—to hold a public hearing on each citizen initiative certified for the ballot and draft a 300-word summary following the hearing. The draft was written to require no more than six legislators to belong to the same political party and to prevent anyone affiliated with a ballot measure effort from serving on the board. The draft was also designed to require the commission to designate two five-member committees to write both support and opposition arguments for the citizen initiative to be included in a voter information pamphlet. As of 2017, proponents of citizen initiatives were permitted to write the pro statement for the initiative and opposition statements could be submitted by an individual representing opponents of the measure. It was approved and recommended in a vote of 9-2, with two excused. It was set to be introduced in the state House, and Rep. Reed said he would be the prime sponsor of the bill.

The task force also considered and rejected several other drafts. They are available here.

North Dakota task force

The North Dakota State Legislature also passed a bill—Senate Bill 2135—authorizing a task force to study and recommend changes to the initiative and referendum process. The committee was required to submit suggestions by September 1, 2018. Information about the task force, including a roster of members, is available here. The committee met for the first time on July 31, 2017.

Approved legislation

a Arizona House Bill 2404 was designed to prohibit paying circulators according to the number of signatures collected; make paying circulators on a per-signature basis a class 1 misdemeanor; and increase the number of days that legal challenges to the registration of circulators can commence from five days to ten business days after signatures are filed.

• Two veto referendum signature petition drives targeting HB 2404 were started, but no signatures were submitted by the deadline.
• The introduced version of the bill was written to also require paid circulators to register with the state, make certain disclosures, complete a training program provided by the state, and pay a registration fee; require initiative proponents to post bonds for paid signature gatherers ranging from $10,000 to $50,000; and create an Initiative and Referendum Integrity Fund. These provisions were removed through amendments, however. Provisions similar to them were included in separate legislative efforts.

a Arizona House Bill 2244 was designed to require strict scrutiny of initiative petitions and strict compliance with all rules surrounding the process. It was written to allow petition signatures to be rejected based on technical deficiencies. The bill was approved by the Arizona State Senate on April 12, 2017, and it was approved by the Arizona House of Representatives and transmitted to the governor on April 13, 2017.

• A veto referendum signature petition drive targeting HB 2244 was started, but no signatures were submitted by the deadline.

a Arkansas House Bill 1440 was designed to require initiative and referendum sponsors to file a list of paid circulators, their addresses, and their signature cards to the secretary of state upon filing their petition.

a California Assembly Constitutional Amendment 17 was designed to delay the effective date for approved ballot measures from the day after the election to "five days after the Secretary of State files the statement of the vote for the election." ACA 17 was set to go before voters for ratification at the June 2018 ballot.

a California Assembly Bill 249 was designed to amend campaign finance restrictions and reporting requirements and other aspects of campaign disclosures. Click [1] for details.

a California Assembly Bill 195 was designed to extend certain ballot forms required for local initiatives to local measures proposed by local governing bodies.

a California Assembly Bill 1367 was designed to make it a crime for any "company, organization, company official, or other organizational officer in charge of a person who circulates an initiative, referendum, or recall petition who knowingly directs or permits the person to make a false affidavit concerning the initiative, referendum, or recall petition or the signatures appended to the petition," where previously state law made it a crime for a person to make a false affidavit without referring to companies or organizations.

a California Assembly Bill 765 was designed to "require that the election for a county, municipal, or district initiative measure that qualifies for the ballot be the next statewide or regular election, as applicable, unless the governing body of the county, city, or district calls a special election." Going into 2017, whether county or municipal initiatives were on general or special election ballots was determined by the number of signatures on petitions, and elections for district initiatives depended on whether petitions contained a specific request.

a California Assembly Bill 1729 was designed to require local elections officials to keep signature sheets for failed initiative, referendum, and recall petitions for at least a year if the petition sponsors instigate an investigation of the petition after it has been found insufficient. Going into 2017, local elections officials were required to keep signature sheets for eight months.

a California Assembly Bill 606 was designed to make certain changes to how the internet is used to send information pamphlets to voters and set certain requirements about the accessibility of information online.

a California Senate Bill 665 was designed require proponents or opponents of a ballot measure that are submitting official arguments for or against the measure to also submit additional information to election officials.

a Colorado Senate Bill 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.

a Maine Legislative Document 299 was designed to require the state treasurer's bond statement for bond issues to be printed on the ballot and as a separate document. Going into 2017, the state treasurer's bond statement was to be printed on the ballot oder as a separate document.

a Maine Legislative Document 1323 was designed to authorize "the secretary of state to invalidate a petition for a direct initiative or people's veto if the Secretary of State is unable to verify the notarization of that petition."

a Maryland Senate Bill 130 was designed to prohibit any foreign government, political party, individual, partnership, association, corporation, organization or other "foreign principal" from contributing to a ballot issue campaign or to a person that contributes to support or oppose a ballot issue.

a Nevada Assembly Bill 45 was designed to do the following:

• make certain changes to the timeline and deadlines for recall, initiative, and referendum petitions;
• require the registration of petition circulators with the secretary of state;
• make rules and establish requirements for the withdrawal of an initiative petition.

a North Dakota Senate Bill 2135 was designed to establish a commission to study the state's initiative and referendum process in 2017 and 2018 and propose amendments.

a North Dakota Senate Bill 2343 was designed to establish certain campaign finance reporting requirements.

a North Dakota House Bill 1234 was designed to prohibit political or election-related contributions from foreign governments, parties, corporations, or individuals.

a Oregon House Bill 2696 was designed to alter policy on the state's voter information pamphlet to include special district ballot measures and candidate elections under certain conditions.

a Oregon Senate Bill 520 was designed to require "that recall of district officer of irrigation district follow standard procedures for recall of public officers."

a South Dakota Senate Bill 77 was designed to require a fiscal impact report and summary be provided for any initiated oder referred measure.

a South Dakota Senate Bill 59 was designed to make the effective date for approved ballot measures—initiatives and referred measures—the first day of July after the election results for the measure are certified instead of the day upon which the election results for the measures are certified.

a South Dakota House Bill 1141 was designed to establish a task force to investigate the state's initiative and veto referendum processes and suggest changes.

a Utah Senate Bill 69 was designed to require the following information to be provided to voters in a municipality with a proposition on the ballot in certain prescribed ways—including by mail, electronically, and online:

• the ballot title of the proposition;
• instructions about how to filed arguments in support of or opposition to the proposition;
• the deadlines for submitting such arguments.

a Utah House Bill 255 was designed to require a disclosure statement concerning the percentage of the tax increase to be added to the following items:

• the notice of the public hearing on the initiative;
• the fiscal impact statement;
• the voter information pamphlet; and
• the ballot title.

Legislation by state

Legend

= This legislation is still pending. = This legislation was neither approved or defeated in a state that carries over legislation from odd-numbered years to even-numbered years. a = This legislation was approved. d = This legislation was defeated or is dead.

Note: This database is only periodically updated. For the status of a single bill, click the title to view its current status.

Alabama

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Alabama

d Alabama House Bill 548 was designed to propose a constitutional amendment to establish the powers of initiative and veto referendum. Constitutional amendments require voter approval before enactment.

d Alabama House Bill 544 was designed to propose a constitutional amendment to establish the power of recall for the offices of governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, state treasurer, state auditor, and commissioner of agriculture and industries. Constitutional amendments require voter approval before enactment.

Arizona

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Arizona

a Arizona House Bill 2404 was designed to prohibit paying circulators according to the number of signatures collected; make paying circulators on a per-signature basis a class 1 misdemeanor; reinstate a law repealed by legislators in 2015 allowing individuals to file legal challenges to initiative signature petitions, and increase the number of days that legal challenges to the registration of circulators can commence from five days to ten business days after signatures are filed.

• A veto referendum signature petition drive targeting HB 2404 was started, but did not succeed in putting the law before voters.
• The introduced version of the bill was written to also require paid circulators to register with the state, make certain disclosures, complete a training program provided by the state, and pay a registration fee; require initiative proponents to post bonds for paid signature gatherers ranging from $10,000 to $50,000; and create an Initiative and Referendum Integrity Fund. These provisions were removed through amendments, however. Provisions similar to them were included in separate legislative efforts.

a Arizona House Bill 2244 was designed to require strict scrutiny of initiative petitions and strict compliance with all rules surrounding to process. It was written to allow petition signatures to be rejected based on technical deficiencies. The bill was approved by the Arizona State Senate on April 12, 2017, and it was approved by the Arizona House of Representatives and transmitted to the governor on April 13, 2017. The governor signed the bill into law on April 14, 2017.

d Arizona Senate Bill 1236 was designed to do the following:

• require paid circulators to register with the state;
• require committees or individual proponents sponsoring an initiative to file with the secretary of state if they use paid signature gatherers;
• make the supporting committees or individuals responsible for violations committed by paid signature gatherers and allow a $1,000 fine per violation; and
• enact other restrictions and rules on initiative petitions.

This bill was approved by the state Senate and then amended and approved by the state House, which means it was sent back to the Senate for approval of the House amendments. The Senate did not give final approval of the amended version, and the bill, therefore, died when the session adjourned on May 10, 2017.

Many of the provisions in SB 1236 were passed by the Arizona legislature in 2013 as HB 2305. A veto referendum effort was launched against HB 2305. When the referendum qualified for the ballot, the legislature repealed HB 2305.

d Arizona House Concurrent Resolution 2002 was designed to do the following:

• propose a constitutional amendment to remove Arizona's legislative alteration laws for initiatives and veto referendums, thereby allowing the legislature to amend or repeal citizen initiatives and referendums.

Going into 2017, state law prevented the legislature from repealing citizen initiatives and referendums or amend them unless an amendment furthers the purpose of the initiative or referendum and is approved by a three-fourths supermajority. These legislative alteration laws were approved by voters in 1998 through Proposition 105. Constitutional amendments require voter approval for enactment.

d Arizona House Concurrent Resolution 2007 was designed to do the following:

• propose a constitutional amendment to remove Arizona's legislative alteration laws for veto referendums, thereby allowing the legislature to amend or repeal referendums.

Going into 2017, state law prevented the legislature from repealing citizen initiatives and referendums or amend them unless the amendment furthers the purpose of the initiative or referendum and is approved by a three-fourths supermajority. These legislative alteration laws were approved by voters in 1998 through Proposition 105. This resolution is similar to HCR 2002, except HCR 2002 was written to apply to both initiatives and referendums, while HCR 2007 was written to apply only to referendums. Constitutional amendments require voter approval for enactment.

d Arizona Senate Concurrent Resolution 1013 was designed to do the following:

• proposed a constitutional amendment to establish a distribution requirement for citizen initiatives and veto referendums.

Going into 2017, state law required 15 percent of votes cast for governor for initiated constitutional amendments, 10 percent for initiated state statutes, and 5 percent for veto referendums, and the law allowed these signatures to be collected from anywhere in the state. SCR 1013 was written to require these signatures to be collected from voters distributed across all of the states legislative districts. Constitutional amendments require voter approval for enactment.

d Arizona House Concurrent Resolution 2029 was designed to do the following:

• proposed a constitutional amendment to establish a distribution requirement for citizen initiatives and veto referendums.

Going into 2017, state law required 15 percent of votes cast for governor for initiated constitutional amendments, 10 percent for initiated state statutes, and 5 percent for veto referendums, and the law allowed these signatures to be collected from anywhere in the state. SCR 1013 was written to require these signatures to be collected from voters distributed across all of the states legislative districts. Constitutional amendments require voter approval for enactment.

d Arizona House Bill 2255 was designed to do the following:

• prohibit contributions or expenditures in support of or opposition to a ballot measure from individuals that are not Arizona state residents and committees that are not registered in Arizona.

d Arizona House Bill 2320 was designed to do the following:

• require notice of the state's laws preventing the legislature from repealing or amending initiatives and veto referendums to be included on the ballot, state voter information pamphlets, and campaign expenditure disclosures.

The notice dictated by HB 2320 is as follows: "NOTICE: PURSUANT TO PROPOSITION 105 (1998), THIS MEASURE CANNOT BE CHANGED IN THE FUTURE IF APPROVED ON THE BALLOT EXCEPT BY A THREE‑FOURTHS VOTE OF THE LEGISLATURE AND IF THE CHANGE FURTHERS THE PURPOSE OF THE ORIGINAL BALLOT MEASURE, OR BY REFERRING THE CHANGE TO THE BALLOT."

Arkansas

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Arkansas

a Arkansas House Bill 1440 was designed to require initiative and referendum sponsors to file a list of paid circulators, their addresses, and their signature cards to the secretary of state upon filing their petition.

d Arkansas House Joint Resolution 1003 was designed to amend the state constitution to do the following:

• require a 60 percent supermajority in a statewide election to approve constitutional amendments, including both legislatively referred constitutional amendments and initiated constitutional amendments;
• require a two-thirds supermajority vote in both chambers for the legislature to refer constitutional amendments to the voters—instead of the simple majority required going into 2017;
• make the state's distribution requirement more strict by requiring half of the required percentage of signatures in each of 25 counties instead of the 15 required going into 2017;
• require initiative signature petitions to be submitted 180 days before the election instead of four months before the election as required going into 2017;
• restrict legislative votes on legislatively referred constitutional amendments to odd-numbered years in any regular session;
• make other changes to the laws governing ballot measures in Arkansas, including rules about deadlines for legal challenges and a ban on amendments that grant rights or privileges to specific individuals or corporations.

d Arkansas Senate Joint Resolution 10 was designed to require three-fifths (60 percent) supermajority voter approval for constitutional amendments. This proposal would have required voter approval had it passed in the legislature.

d Arkansas House Joint Resolution 1013 was designed to amend the state constitution to do the following:

• change the deadline for submitting initiative signatures from four months before the election to 180 days before the election;
• require legal challenges to ballot titles to be filed within 60 days after the initiative petition is initially filed;
• require legal challenges to the sufficiency of signature petitions to be made within 60 days after the signatures are submitted;
• make non-substantive changes to election law.

Constitutional amendments require voter approval to be enacted.

d Arkansas House Joint Resolution 1004 was designed to amend the state constitution to do the following:

• change the deadline for submitting initiative signatures from four months before the election to 150 days before the election;
• require legal challenges to ballot titles to be filed within 30 days after the initiative petition is initially filed;
• require legal challenges to the sufficiency of signature petitions to be made within 30 days after the signatures are submitted;
• require courts to decide the sufficiency of a petition before ballots are printed for the election—rather than simply before the election is held—in order to prevent a vote on the measure or invalidate the measure, provided it is approved by voters.

Constitutional amendments require voter approval to be enacted.

d Arkansas House Bill 1861 was designed to repeal the requirement that the attorney general consider and approve the ballot title and summary for an initiative before the initiative petition is circulated.

d Arkansas House Bill 1931 was designed to remove the duty of the attorney general to amend and replace any objectionable ballot title and summary for an initiative, requiring the attorney general, instead, to simply reject the submitted title and summary and provide an explanation. The sponsors of the initiative would have been responsible for changing the ballot title until the attorney general approved it as accurate and clear.

d Arkansas House Bill 2074 would have done the following:

• define "canvassing company" as any company that provided paid signature gatherers for a petition drive;
• prevent any incomplete signature on a petition from being struck from the petition simply for being incomplete;
• require canvassing companies to file a statement of organization with the state if they receive or expend more than $500 for the purpose of qualifying or advocating for or against a ballot measure;
• require canvassing companies to put up a bond of $100,000 for the sake of covering costs related to lawsuits against signatures;
• require canvassing companies to perform background checks on all owners and employees;
• require challenges to ballot titles to be made within 30 days of the approval of the ballot title by the attorney general;
• prevent the disqualification of signatures because of clerical errors made by petitioners/canvassers; and
• require the submission of mandated information about paid canvassers to be submitted when signatures are submitted, at the latest, where previously the information had to be submitted to the state prior to the dates on any signatures collected by the canvasser.

California

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in California

a California Assembly Constitutional Amendment 17 was designed to delay the effective date for approved ballot measures from the day after the election to "five days after the Secretary of State files the statement of the vote for the election." ACA 17 was set to go before voters for ratification at the June 2018 ballot.

a California Assembly Bill 249 was designed to amend campaign finance restrictions and reporting requirements and other aspects of campaign disclosures. Click here for details.

a California Assembly Bill 195 was designed to extend certain ballot forms required for local initiatives to local measures proposed by local governing bodies.

a California Assembly Bill 1367 was designed to make it a crime for any "company, organization, company official, or other organizational officer in charge of a person who circulates an initiative, referendum, or recall petition who knowingly directs or permits the person to make a false affidavit concerning the initiative, referendum, or recall petition or the signatures appended to the petition," where previously state law made it a crime for a person to make a false affidavit without referring to companies or organizations.

a California Assembly Bill 606 was designed to make certain changes to how the internet is used to send information pamphlets to voters and set certain requirements about the accessibility of information online.

a California Assembly Bill 765 was designed to "require that the election for a county, municipal, or district initiative measure that qualifies for the ballot be the next statewide or regular election, as applicable, unless the governing body of the county, city, or district calls a special election." Going into 2017, whether county or municipal initiatives were on general or special election ballots was determined by the number of signatures on petitions, and elections for district initiatives depended on whether petitions contained a specific request.

a California Senate Bill 96 made changes to the state's process for recall petitions.

a California Assembly Bill 1729 required local county elections officials to retain signature records for a longer period of time.

a California Senate Bill 665 was designed require proponents or opponents of a ballot measure that are submitting official arguments for or against the measure to also submit additional information to election officials.

d California Assembly Constitutional Amendment 3 was designed to make the office of the legislative analyst instead of the attorney general responsible for drafting the official ballot title and summary for initiatives and referendums. The ballot title and summary are presented on petition forms during circulation.

(Vetoed) California Assembly Bill 890 was designed to require local citizen initiative proponents to submit their initiatives to county planning commissions, which would have determined if the initiatives have the potential to directly or indirectly affect the environment. If the commission determined the initiative in question would have such an effect, the initiative would have been deemed unsuitable for the initiative process, and the governing body—either the city council or the county board of supervisors—would have held a public hearing at which they would have either approved or rejected the proposed law. This bill was approved by the legislature, but it was vetoed by the governor.

d California Senate Bill 651 was designed to do the following:

• require a disclosure statement concerning a signature gatherer's volunteer or paid status on initiative, referendum, and recall petitions;
• require a disclosure statement about the top three donors of at least $50,000 or more to the committee behind the initiative, referendum, or recall petition.

d California Senate Bill 609 was designed to require city and county elections officials to directly place local initiatives or veto referendums on the next legally available election ballot upon the certification of the sufficiency of the petition and then remove the measure from the ballot upon approval by the local legislative body (city council or board of supervisors). Going into 2017, state law required local elections officials to certify the sufficiency of the petition to the local legislative body upon verification of signatures, but they did not officially certify it for the ballot until the legislative body took action on the initiative or referendum in question.

d California Assembly Bill 112 was designed to provide for a 30-day period during which voters could withdraw signatures from a recall petition, to provide for the estimation of costs of a recall election before signatures are certified, to authorize the Department of Finance to direct the controller to provide money to affected counties, and to prohibit the use of random sampling for verifying recall petition signatures.

California Assembly Bill 187 was designed to "require a committee to file a report each time it makes contributions or independent expenditures aggregating $5,000 or more to support or oppose the qualification of a single local initiative or referendum ballot measure" and to prescribe rules for such reporting.

California Senate Constitutional Amendment 15 was designed to amend the state constitution to include the exercise of initiative power in the definition of local government, thereby requiring the same voter approval thresholds and election timing for tax-related initiatives as for tax-related proposals brought by other governing bodies. Constitutional amendments require voter approval.

California Assembly Bill 14 was designed to amend campaign finance restrictions and reporting requirements and other aspects of campaign disclosures.

Colorado

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Colorado

a Colorado Senate Bill 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.

Connecticut

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Connecticut

d Connecticut House Joint Resolution 14 was designed to amend the state constitution to provide a direct initiative process.

d Connecticut House Joint Resolution 37 was designed to amend the state constitution to provide direct initiative and veto referendum processes.

d Connecticut House Joint Resolution 48 was designed to amend the state constitution to provide direct initiative, veto referendum, and recall processes.

d Connecticut Senate Joint Resolution 9 was designed to amend the state constitution to provide direct initiative and veto referendum processes.

d Connecticut House Bill 5456 was designed to require voter approval of a proposed casino or gambling facility at a municipal referendum in any city in which a gambling facility is proposed.

d Connecticut Senate Bill 15 was designed to require voter approval at a municipal referendum before any school district closes a school.

d Connecticut Senate Bill 253 was designed to require voter approval at a municipal referendum before the department of transportation can change rail service if the change affects a city or town.

d Connecticut Senate Bill 263 was designed to require voter approval at a municipal referendum before state funds can be allocated for changing rail services if the change impacts a city or town.

Florida

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Florida

d Florida Senate Joint Resolution 866 was designed to amend the state constitution to increase the supermajority requirement to approve constitutional amendments from 60 percent to 66.67 percent (two-thirds).

As a proposed constitutional amendment, HRJ 866 would require voter approval by a 60 percent majority.

d Florida House Joint Resolution 321 was designed to amend the state constitution to increase the supermajority requirement to approve constitutional amendments from 60 percent to 66.67 percent (two-thirds).

As a proposed constitutional amendment, HRJ 866 would require voter approval by a 60 percent majority.

d Florida House Joint Resolution 349 was designed to amend the state constitution to allow for initiated state statute—initiatives used to propose state statutes.

Going into 2017, Florida law only allowed for initiated constitutional amendments.

d Florida Senate Joint Resolution 1332 was designed to amend the state constitution to allow for initiated state statute—initiatives used to propose state statutes.

Going into 2017, Florida law only allowed for initiated constitutional amendments.

Georgien

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Georgia

Georgia Senate Resolution 254 was designed to provide for a statewide process for initiative and veto referendum.

Georgia Senate Resolution 71 was designed to amend the state constitution to require the ballot summaries of legislatively referred constitutional amendments to be prepared "by an independent body appointed by the deans of the University of Georgia School of Law and the Georgia State University College of Law and by the Supreme Court of Georgia." Constitutional amendments require voter approval.

Hawaii

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Hawaii

Hawaii House Bill 1202 was designed to amend the state constitution to provide for the powers of initiative, veto referendum, and recall.

Constitutional amendments passed by the legislature require voter approval.

Hawaii Senate Bill 833 was designed to amend the state constitution to provide for the powers of initiative, veto referendum, and recall.

Constitutional amendments passed by the legislature require voter approval.

Hawaii Senate Bill 832 was designed to amend the state constitution to provide for the power of initiative.

Constitutional amendments passed by the legislature require voter approval.

Hawaii Senate Bill 878 was designed to require a voter pamphlet to be distributed to voters.

Hawaii House Bill 287 was designed to remove certain campaign finance requirements for non-candidate committees.

Hawaii House Bill 366 was designed to require corporations to only make political contributions after majority approval from the company's shareholders and require corporations to provide public notice to shareholders and on their websites within two days of making a political contribution.

Hawaii Senate Bill 444 was designed to remove some reporting requirements for contributors to non-candidate committees who give more than $100.

Idaho

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Idaho

d Idaho House Bill 109 was designed to do the following:

• allow city initiatives and referendums to go on the ballot in November of both even- and odd-numbered years instead of only during even-numbered years;
• to remove the requirement that city initiative and referendum signature petitions be submitted 180 days after the ballot summary is provided to petitions and circulation begins or May 1, whichever comes first and, instead, leave May 1 of the election year as the only deadline that applies.

d Idaho House Joint Resolution 3 was designed to amend the state's constitution to reduce the supermajority requirement to pass local bond measures from a two-thirds (66.67%) vote to a 60 percent requirement. As a constitutional amendment, this proposal would have required voter approval had it passed the legislature.

Illinois

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Illinois

Illinois House Joint Resolution 26 was designed to do the following:

• establish a process for "the recall of all Executive Branch officers and members of the General Assembly" instead of only the governor;
• reduce the signature requirements for a recall petition—including against the governor—from 15 percent to 10 percent of the votes cast for gubernatorial candidates and the immediately preceding gubernatorial election; and
• change rules for petitioner affidavits for recall petitions.

Illinois House Bill 347 was designed to create a process by which "electors may petition for a referendum at the next general election to dissolve a unit of local government."

Illinois House Bill 4041 was designed to establish a process for the recall of the Chicago mayor, Chicago aldermen, and the Cook County State's attorney.

Illinois House Bill 204 was designed to establish a process for the recall of the mayor of Chicago.

Illinois House Bill 4043 was designed to establish "that any referendum, initiative, proposition, or other ballot question which establishes a new tax, increases an existing tax, or gives a unit of local government the authority to establish a new tax or increase an existing tax shall only be submitted to the voters or electors at a general election."

Illinois House Bill 1330 was designed to establish requirements for the disclosure of donor information in campaign advertisements, including those for ballot measure campaigns.

Other bills related to elections and ballot measure law were introduced in the 2017 Illinois legislative session, but they were either non-substantive or not relevant to Ballotpedia's coverage of ballot measure law. If you know of a bill that should be listed here, please email [email protected].

Louisiana

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Louisiana

d Louisiana House Bill 71 was designed to require the conservation of all military-related memorials and statues unless voters approve of the removal, destruction, or alteration of the memorial.

d Louisiana House Bill 41 was designed to remove an exception that allowed the same tax proposal to be presented to voters more than once in a six-month period provided the local governing authority determines there is an emergency.

Maine

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Maine

a Maine Legislative Document 299 was designed to require the state treasurer's bond statement for bond issues to be printed on the ballot and as a separate document. Going into 2017, the state treasurer's bond statement was to be printed on the ballot oder as a separate document.

a Maine Legislative Document 795 was designed to require the full text of a direct initiative to be printed on the ballot.

a Maine Legislative Document 1323 was designed to authorize "the secretary of state to invalidate a petition for a direct initiative or people's veto if the Secretary of State is unable to verify the notarization of that petition."

d Maine Legislative Document 715 was designed to amend direct initiative petition signature requirements from 10 percent of votes cast for governor in the most recent election to 15 percent of registered voters in each county. It was also designed to establish requirements for public debate on ballot measures.

d Maine Legislative Document 1271 was designed to amend the process for certifying direct initiatives and referendums.

d Maine Legislative Document 1035 was designed to require an opinion of the Supreme Judicial Court to be printed on a ballot containing a direct initiative.

d Maine Legislative Document 937 was designed to require a fiscal impact statement to be included on the ballot of a direct initiative.

Maine Legislative Document 31 was designed to propose an amendment to the state constitution to establish a distribution requirement for citizen initiatives.

• The requirement would dictate that signatures equal to 10 percent of votes cast for governor in each of Maine's two congressional districts be collected in order to qualify an initiative for the ballot.

d Maine Legislative Document 883 was designed to require initiative petition circulators to be paid a minimum of $25 per signature.

d Maine Legislative Document 796 was designed to amend the state constitution to implement a distribution requirement for signature gathering by requiring "the total number of signatures required for a direct initiative of legislation to be not less than 10% of the total vote for Governor cast in each county in the last gubernatorial election. It also requires each of the signatures from a county to be that of a person registered to vote in that county."

d Maine Legislative Document 212 was designed to propose an amendment to the state constitution to establish a distribution requirement for citizen initiatives.

• The requirement would dictate that signatures equal to 10 percent of votes cast for governor in each of Maine's 35 senatorial districts be collected in order to qualify an initiative for the ballot.

d Maine Legislative Document 5 was designed to propose an amendment to the state constitution to prevent citizen initiatives from being used to change state law about wildlife issues.

d Maine Legislative Document 564 was designed to propose an amendment to the state constitution to increase the signature requirement for initiatives by doing the following:

• change the basis of signature requirements for citizen initiatives from the number of votes cast for governor in the immediately preceding gubernatorial election to the number of votes cast in Maine for the presidential candidates in the immediately preceding presidential election.
• change the signature requirement for citizen initiatives from 10 percent to 15 percent of votes cast.

d Maine Legislative Document 53 was designed to propose an amendment to the state constitution to prohibit paying signature gatherers based on the number of signatures collected.

d Maine Legislative Document 1265 was designed to "allow the creation of a local option sales tax by referendum."

Note: All constitutional amendments approved by the legislature require voter approval before being enacted.

Maryland

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Maryland

d Maryland House Bill 1505 was designed to amend the state constitution to adjust the timeline and deadlines for veto referendum signatures to allow the process to be used to target bills vetoed by the governor that are then approved by the legislature, overriding the governor's veto.

• Going into 2017, state law required veto referendum signatures to be submitted by June 1 following the legislative session at which the targeted bill was approved, with no extension or adjusted deadline for veto referendums targeting bills that were vetoed and then approved at a later special session of the legislature.

a Maryland Senate Bill 130 was designed to prohibit any foreign government, political party, individual, partnership, association, corporation, organization or other "foreign principal" from contributing to a ballot issue campaign or to a person that contributes to support or oppose a ballot issue.

d Maryland House Bill 84 was designed to amend the state's constitution to require approval from a simple majority of voters voting on the question rather than a majority of voters voting at the election to vote in favor of constitutional convention questions to require the legislature to call for a constitutional convention.

Massachusetts

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Massachusetts

Massachusetts Senate Bill 12 was designed to amend the state constitution to prevent initiated constitutional amendments from restricting "the rights set forth in this constitution to freedom and equality, or the right of each individual to be protected by society in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, according to standing laws."

Constitutional amendments approved by the legislature also require voter approval at a statewide election.

Massachusetts House Bill 65 was designed to amend the state constitution to prevent initiated constitutional amendments from restricting "the rights set forth in this constitution to freedom and equality, or the right of each individual to be protected by society in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, according to standing laws." A senate committee recommended slight changes through Senate Bill 2055.

Constitutional amendments approved by the legislature also require voter approval at a statewide election.

Massachusetts Senate Document 643 was designed to establish a commission to review citizen initiatives and provide unbiased analyses.

Massachusetts Senate Document 21 was designed to establish certain voter approval requirements for certain regional transportation issues.

Massachusetts Senate Bill 390 was designed to establish an initiative review commission.

Massachusetts House Bill 368 was designed to establish an initiative review commission.

Massachusetts Senate Bill 1623 was designed to establish a procedure for local citizen-initiated or referred ballot questions about increasing or decreasing the local real estate and personal property taxes.

There were also several bills proposing to authorize a recall process in specific cities through amending city charters.

Michigan

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Michigan

Michigan House Bill 4635 was designed to amend state law to make it a misdemeanor for a circulator of a petition for initiative, referendum, constitutional amendment, or recall to make "a false statement or misrepresentation concerning the contents, purport, or effect of" the petition.

Michigan Senate Bill 0395 was designed to amend state law to make it a misdemeanor for a circulator of a petition for initiative, referendum, constitutional amendment, or recall to make "a false statement or misrepresentation concerning the contents, purport, or effect of" the petition.

Michigan House Bill 5211 was designed to amend state law find an organization guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum $10,000 fine for employing an individual who, while circulating a petition for initiative, referendum, constitutional amendment, or recall, was found to have made "a false statement or misrepresentation concerning the contents, purport, or effect of" the petition.

Michigan House Bill 5214 was designed to amend Michigan law to state that if the signature of the same voter appears on a petition for recall, constitutional amendment, initiative, or referendum more than once, only the first signature would be counted.

Michigan House Bill 5208 was designed to establish a process by which a voter may remove his or her signature from a referendum, initiative, constitutional amendment, or recall petition.

Michigan House Bill 5209 was designed to prohibit organizations from employing individuals who have been convicted of elections crimes as petition signature gatherers for recall, referendum, initivative, or constitutional amendment.

Michigan House Bill 5210 was designed to prohibit organizations employing recall, referendum, initiative, or constitutional amendment petition signature gatherers from paying a fixed rate per signature or per signature sheet. The bill would require compensation to be set at an hourly rate.

Michigan House Bill 5212 was designed to require paid petition circulators for initiatives, referendums, recalls, or constitutional amendments to wear identification badges that state they are being paid and identify the entity compensating them.

Michigan House Bill 5213 was designed to require organizations employing signature gatherers to register with the secretary of state's office and to establish penalties for organizations unable to provide the office with records of its employees.

Minnesota

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Minnesota

Minnesota Senate File 989 was designed to require the governor to sign proposed constitutional amendments before they were approved for the ballot by the legislature. It also was designed to allow the governor to veto such proposed amendments. The amendment was written to require the legislature to have to vote to override the governor's veto to put such an amendment on the ballot. A two-thirds (66.67%) vote in each chamber of the legislature is required to override a gubernatorial veto in Minnesota.

• SF 989 was the companion bill of HF 1112.

Minnesota House File 1112 was designed to require the governor to sign proposed constitutional amendments before they were approved for the ballot by the legislature. It also was designed to allow the governor to veto such proposed amendments. The amendment was written to require the legislature to have to vote to override the governor's veto to put such an amendment on the ballot. A two-thirds (66.67%) vote in each chamber of the legislature is required to override a gubernatorial veto in Minnesota.

• HF 1112 was the companion bill of SF 989.

Minnesota House File 819 was designed to prevent employees of a school district from using public funds to support or oppose ballot issues, political candidates, and legislation.

Minnesota House File 545 was designed to do the following:

• prohibit public officials—including the secretary of state—from using any public funds or resources to support or oppose ballot questions;
• prohibit the secretary of state from using "the inherent prestige of the office in any manner that has the effect of promoting or defeating a ballot question."
• HF 545 was a companion bill to SF 581.

Minnesota Senate File 581 was designed to do the following:

• prohibit public officials—including the secretary of state—from using any public funds or resources to support or oppose ballot questions;
• prohibit the secretary of state from using "the inherent prestige of the office in any manner that has the effect of promoting or defeating a ballot question."
• SF 581 was a companion bill to HF 545.

Minnesota House File 1964 was designed to authorize the recall of school board members.

• HF 1964 was a companion bill to SF 1363.

Minnesota Senate File 1361 was designed to authorize the recall of school board members.

• SF 1361 was a companion bill to HF 1964.

Minnesota Senate File 2372 was designed to require voter approval of certain local sales tax increases.

• SF 2372 was a companion bill to HF.

Minnesota House File 2628 was designed to require voter approval of certain local sales tax increases.

• HF 2628 was a companion bill to SF 2372.

Minnesota Senate File 2317 was designed to require voter approval before any city, town, or county dissolved a law enforcement agency within its jurisdiction.

• SF 2317 was a companion bill to HF 2590.

Minnesota House File 2590 was designed to require voter approval before any city, town, or county dissolved a law enforcement agency within its jurisdiction.

• HF 2590 was a companion bill to SF 2317.

Minnesota Senate File 1849 was designed to establish a petition process for requiring a referendum on any city plan to execute a qualified lease.

• SF 1849 was a companion bill to HF 112.

Minnesota House File 112 was designed to establish a petition process for requiring a referendum on any city plan to execute a qualified lease.

• HF 112 was a companion bill to SF 1849.

Mississippi

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Mississippi

d Mississippi House Bill 250 was designed to establish a process for recall of local and state elected officials.

d Mississippi Senate Bill 2182 was designed to establish a process for recall of local and state elected officials.

Missouri

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Missouri

d Missouri Senate Bill 389 was designed to do the following:

• require petition circulators to be registered voters in Missouri;
• require petition circulators to carry badges identifying whether or not they are volunteers or paid circulators; and
• prohibit paying petition circulators based on the number of signatures collected.
• SB 389 was the same as HB 1055.

d Missouri House Bill 1055 was designed to do the following:

• require petition circulators to be registered voters in Missouri;
• require petition circulators to carry badges identifying whether or not they are volunteers or paid circulators; and
• prohibit paying petition circulators based on the number of signatures collected.
• HB 1055 was the same as SB 389.

d Missouri House Bill 1043 was designed to do the following:

• require a $500 fee from petitioners to cover signature verification costs, which would be refunded upon the successful certification of the initiative;
  • The fee could be waived if proponents showed that the could not pay it.
• require signature petitions to be submitted nine months before the election rather than six months before the election;
• require petition circulators to carry badges identifying whether or not they are volunteers or paid circulators; and
• prohibit paying petition circulators based on the number of signatures collected.

d Missouri House Bill 269 was designed to prohibit the use of any public funds or resources to be used to support or oppose ballot questions and establish penalties.

Nevada

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Nevada

a Nevada Assembly Bill 45 was designed to do the following:

• make certain changes to the timeline and deadlines for recall, initiative, and referendum petitions;
• require the registration of petition circulators with the secretary of state;
• make rules and establish requirements for the withdrawal of an initiative petition.

d Nevada Assembly Joint Resolution 8 was designed to amend the constitution require a two-thirds (66.67%) vote for the approval of ballot measures—both legislative referrals and initiatives—that would increase taxes or state revenue.

• This resolution was approved in the 2015 legislative session.
• In Nevada, legislatively referred constitutional amendments require approval in two legislative sessions and then voter approval at a statewide election.

New Jersey

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in New Jersey

d New Jersey Assembly Concurrent Resolution 112 was designed to do the following:

• propose a constitutional amendment to establish the power of initiative and veto referendum.

d New Jersey Senate Concurrent Resolution 96 was designed to do the following:

• propose a constitutional amendment to establish the power of initiative and veto referendum.

d New Jersey Assembly Concurrent Resolution 40 was designed to do the following:

• propose a "constitutional amendment to provide for enactment of laws concerning property tax reform, campaign finance, lobbying, government ethics, and elections procedure by Statewide initiative and referendum."

d New Jersey Assembly Concurrent Resolution 74 was designed to do the following:

• propose a constitutional amendment to establish the power of initiative and veto referendum specifically for "directing State fiscal restraint."

d New Jersey Senate Concurrent Resolution 74 was designed to do the following:

• propose a constitutional amendment to establish the power of initiative and veto referendum specifically for "directing State fiscal restraint."

d New Jersey Assembly Concurrent Resolution 22 was designed to do the following:

• propose a constitutional amendment to reduce the signature requirement for recall of state elected officials—including members of U.S. Congress—to 25 percent of voters who cast a ballot in the most recent election instead of 25 percent of registered voters.

d New Jersey Assembly Bill 202 was designed to do the following:

• reduce the signature requirement for recall of state elected officials—including members of U.S. Congress—to 25 percent of voters who cast a ballot in the most recent election instead of 25 percent of registered voters.

AB 202, as a companion bill to ACR 22, was written to only take effect upon approval of ACR 22 by the legislature and voter approval at a statewide election.

d New Jersey Assembly Bill 203 was designed to do the following:

• change the "date when a recall election may be initiated from 50th to 90th day preceding completion of first year of term of office."

d New Jersey Assembly Concurrent Resolution 221 was designed to do the following:

• propose a constitutional amendment to establish the power of initiative and veto referendum specifically for "overturning New Jersey Supreme Court decisions and repealing statutes."

d New Jersey Assembly Concurrent Resolution 213 was designed to do the following:

• propose a constitutional amendment to establish the power of initiative and veto referendum specifically for "bills and joint resolutions vetoed by [the] Governor."

d New Jersey Assembly Bill 1052 was designed to require the interpretative statements for bond issues questions to include the full amount of debt and liabilities of the state and any other agency affected by the bond issue.

d New Jersey Assembly Bill 2508 was designed to prohibit holding public questions to repeal or amend voter-approved ordinances that "increase or decrease either the term of office of the members of the governing body or the number of members of the governing body, or regarding the division of the municipality into a number of wards" until five years after voters approved the original proposition. Going into 2017, the restriction said that the proposition to overturn or change such a voter-approved ordinance could only be put before voters once in a ten-year period.

d New Jersey Senate Bill 1412 was designed to prohibit holding public questions to repeal or amend voter-approved propositions that "increase or decrease either the term of office of the members of the governing body or the number of members of the governing body, or regarding the division of the municipality into a number of wards" until five years after voters approved the original proposition. Going into 2017, the restriction said that the proposition to overturn or change such a voter-approved ordinance could only be put before voters once in a ten-year period.

New Mexico

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in New Mexico

d New Mexico House Bill 40 was designed to do the following:

• require municipal recall petitions to include grounds of the recall based on accusations of "malfeasance or misfeasance in office or violation of the oath of office by the official concerned;"
• require those grounds to be presented in district court prior to circulation during a hearing at which recall proponents and the targeted official can provide evidence; and
• require district court to determine "that probable cause exists for the grounds for recall" before the recall petition is circulated.

d New Mexico House Bill 174 was designed to do the following:

• consolidate local special elections;
• require ballot measures—both state and local—slated for special elections to be conducted by all-mail ballots;
• prohibit advisory ballot measures;
• provide a process for recall elections in commissioner-manager municipalities; and
• repeal and amend existing law to conform with new provisions.

New York

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in New York

• The following bills were designed to establish the powers of initiative, veto referendum, and recall of elected officials:

New York Senate Bill 1226

New York Assembly Bill 4770

• The following bills were designed to establish the powers of initiative and veto referendum:

New York Senate Bill 3697

New York Senate Bill 404

New York Assembly Bill 3307

d New York Assembly Bill 4826

• The following bills were designed to establish the power of initiative:

New York Assembly Bill 4236

New York Senate Bill 820

• The following bills were designed to establish the power of recall to petition for the removal of an elected official from office:

New York Assembly Bill 4070

New York Assembly Bill 1459

New York Senate Bill 2157

New York Senate Bill 2089

New York Assembly Bill 71 was designed to provide for the distribution of a voter information pamphlet to every voter prior to each general election.

New York Senate Bill 4140 was designed to require that any ballot proposition that increased state debt feature a statement estimating how long the debt would be outstanding and the total debt service cost—principal and interest.

New York Senate Bill 4322 was designed to require that any ballot proposition that increased state debt feature a statement estimating how long the debt would be outstanding and the total debt service cost—principal and interest.

New York Senate Bill 1849 was designed to require any proposed amendments, ballot propositions, or ballot questions to be posted on the state board of elections website.

New York Assembly Bill 4175 was designed to require any proposed amendments, ballot propositions, or ballot questions to be posted on the state board of elections website.

New York Assembly Bill 2908 was designed to add a requirement that the ballot language for proposed constitutional amendments and ballot proposals be unbiased beyond the current requirements that the language be brief, clear, and coherent.

North Dakota

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in North Dakota

a North Dakota Senate Bill 2343 was designed to establish certain campaign finance reporting requirements.

a North Dakota House Bill 1234 was designed to prohibit political or election-related contributions from foreign governments, parties, corporations, or individuals.

a North Dakota Senate Bill 2135 was designed to establish a commission to study the state's initiative and referendum process in 2017 and 2018 and propose amendments.

d North Dakota Senate Bill 2336 was designed to do the following:

• add reporting requirements for certain contributions in support of or opposition to ballot measures;
• add a restriction preventing out-of-state contributors from providing more than 50 percent of a ballot measure committee's contributions in any given reporting cycle (this provision was removed from the bill as of the first amendment to it); and
• make other changes to ballot measure campaign finance rules.

d North Dakota House Bill 1435 was designed to increase from three months to five months the length of time after a bond or tax levy measure fails to pass and when it can be submitted to the voters again.

Ohio

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Ohio

Ohio House Joint Resolution 5 was designed to amend the state constitution to make the following changes to the state's initiative and referendum process:

• increase the signature requirements for initiated constitutional amendments from 10 percent to 12.5 percent of votes last cast for governor and increase the total signature requirements for indirect initiated state statutes from 6 percent to 7.5 percent of votes last cast for governor;
• require approval by a 60 percent supermajority of voters to pass citizen initiatives—including both initiated constitutional amendments and initiated state statutes;
• require all initiative petition circulators to "serve without compensation," thereby preventing the payment of signature gatherers; and
• repeal provisions preventing initiatives that establish monopolies.

Ohio House Bill 342 was designed to prohibit local tax-related proposals from appearing on a ballot outside general or primary elections and to modify property tax-related ballot language.

Oklahoma

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Oklahoma

d Oklahoma Senate Joint Resolution 18 was designed to amend the state constitution to decrease the signature requirement for initiatives and referendums in the following ways:

• decrease the requirement from 15 percent to 10 percent of votes cast for governor in the preceding gubernatorial election for initiated constitutional amendments;
• decrease from 8 percent to 2 percent of votes cast for governor in the preceding gubernatorial election for initiated state statutes; and
• decrease from 5 percent to 2 percent of votes cast for governor in the preceding gubernatorial election for veto referendums.

d Oklahoma Senate Bill 459 was designed to change the requirements for the date set by the secretary of state on which circulation can begin for an initiative from between 15 and 30 days to between three and 10 days after appeals, protests, and the ballot title process is complete.

d Oklahoma House Bill 1603 was designed to create the "Initiative Petition Requirements Act of 2017." Click the link for details.

d Oklahoma Senate Joint Resolution 19 was designed to prevent the legislature from considering new laws and constitutional amendments during even-numbered legislative sessions except for legislation necessary for appropriations and revenue. This rule could have been overridden by a three-fourths vote in both chambers of the legislature under SJR 19.

Oregon

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Oregon

a Oregon House Bill 2696 was designed to alter policy on the state's voter information pamphlet to include special district ballot measures and candidate elections under certain conditions.

a Oregon Senate Bill 520 was designed to require "that recall of district officer of irrigation district follow standard procedures for recall of public officers."

d Oregon House Joint Resolution 16 was designed to amend the state constitution to create a distribution requirement such that Oregon initiative signature requirements must be met in each congressional district in the state.

Constitutional amendments require approval by the legislature and by voters at a statewide election.

d Oregon Senate Joint Resolution 22 was designed to amend the state constitution to restrict legislative alteration by prohibiting the legislature from amending or repealing an initiative measure for two years without a two-thirds (66.67%) vote in both the house and the senate.

Going into 2017, Oregon was one of 11 states with no restrictions on the legislature amending or repealing citizen initiatives.

Constitutional amendments require approval by the legislature and by voters at a statewide election.

d Oregon Senate Bill 196 was designed to require that each voter whose signature on an initiative signature petition—whether a statewide or local initiative petition—is rejected as invalid be contacted and given the opportunity to give evidence that his or her signature should be counted.

d Oregon House Bill 2411 was designed to establish that a registered voter with inactive registration is able to activate his or her registration by signing an initiative or veto referendum petition and giving a mailing address.

d Oregon Senate Bill 194 was designed to allow any voter or chief petitioner to "file [an] action in circuit court to challenge [a] determination by Secretary of State or elections official to reject elector's signature on initiative or referendum petition during [the] signature verification process."

d Oregon Senate Joint Resolution 40 was designed to amend the state constitution to allow recall petitions to be filed against and begin circulation immediately after the beginning of the officials term if the targeted official served in the same office during the previous term.

Going into 2017, recall petitions could not be started until six months into an official's term of office, whether or not the official served in the previous term or not.

Constitutional amendments require approval by the legislature and by voters at a statewide election.

Pennsylvania

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania Senate Bill 286 was designed to propose an amendment to the state constitution to establish the power of indirect initiative and referendum. Constitutional amendments in the state require voter approval.

Pennsylvania Senate Bill 11 was designed to amend campaign finance reporting requirements and expenditure regulations.

Rhode Island

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Rhode Island

d Rhode Island House Bill 5341 was designed to establish the powers of statewide ballot initiative and veto referendum. The status of HB 5341 is available here.

d Rhode Island Senate Bill 83 was designed to provide a detailed process for the initiative and referendum powers.

d Rhode Island Senate Bill 84 was designed to amend the constitution to establish processes for the initiative and referendum powers.

The proposed amendment would have required ratification by voters.

South Dakota

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in South Dakota

a South Dakota House Bill 1141 was designed to establish a task force to investigate the state's initiative and veto referendum processes and suggest changes.

a South Dakota Senate Bill 77 was designed to require a fiscal impact report and summary be provided for any initiated oder referred measure.

a South Dakota Senate Bill 59 was designed to make the effective date for approved ballot measures—initiatives and referred measures—the first day of July after the election results for the measure are certified instead of the day upon which the election results for the measures are certified.

d South Dakota House Bill 1074 was designed to ban aggregate contributions from a single out-of-state source in excess of $100,000 during a general election cycle.

d South Dakota House Bill 1153 was designed to establish a distribution requirement for initiative and referendum petitions to dictate that at least 50 percent of the signatures required to qualify the measure for the ballot must be collected from at least 33 different counties—amounting to half of the states 66 counties—with the remaining signatures collected from any of the remaining counties.

d South Dakota Senate Joint Resolution 2 was designed to amend the state constitution to do the following:

• require a two-thirds (66.67%) vote in the legislature rather than a simple majority to approved proposed constitutional amendments for the ballot; and
• require a 60 percent supermajority requirement instead of a simple majority at a statewide election to approve constitutional amendments.

Constitutional amendments require approval in the legislature as well as voter approval at a statewide election.

d South Dakota Senate Bill 67 was designed to increase the number of signatures required to put initiated constitutional amendments on the ballot by making the basis of the 10 percent signature requirement the number of registered voters eligible to vote for gubernatorial candidates in the preceding gubernatorial election rather than the number of votes actually cast for gubernatorial candidates in the preceding gubernatorial election. The bill would not have changed the signature requirement for initiated state statutes oder veto referendums

d South Dakota House Bill 1130 was designed to do the following:

• establish a citizen review and public commentary period for initiatives, referred measures, and constitutional amendments;
• require the publication on the secretary of state's website the comments made about ballot measures; and
• require the publication on the secretary of state's website the campaign contributions in support of and opposition to ballot measures.

d South Dakota House Bill 1200 was designed to require additional campaign finance disclosures from ballot measure committees.

Some other nonsubstantive changes to laws governing ballot measures in South Dakota were also introduced, but not included in this list.

Tennessee

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Tennessee

Tennessee Senate Joint Resolution 112 was designed to amend the state constitution to establish an initiative process.

Constitutional amendments require approval by the legislature and the voters at a statewide election.

Tennessee House Joint Resolution 111 was designed to amend the state constitution to establish an initiative process.

Constitutional amendments require approval by the legislature and the voters at a statewide election.

Tennessee Senate Bill 1412 was designed to increase "from 15 days to 30 days, the amount of time in which to cure a defect in the documentation required to initiate a petition for a recall election."

Texas

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Texas

d Texas Senate Bill 201 was designed to make changes concerning "ballot propositions authorizing certain political subdivisions to issue debt obligations."

d Texas Senate Bill 467 was designed to require ballot propositions to explain the relevant question with enough clarity to avoid misleading voters.

d Texas Senate Bill 466 was designed to establish a process for initiatives in home-rule municipalities.

d Texas Senate Bill 488 was designed to make certain changes to rules governing ballot propositions in home-rule municipalities.

d Texas Senate Bill 616 was designed to make certain changes to rules governing ballot propositions in home-rule municipalities.

d Texas House Bill 738 was designed to require bond propositions to include the following information on the ballot:

• "the then-current general obligation debt of this state;"
• "the maximum amount of additional general obligation debt ... authorized by the proposed amendment; and"
• "the maximum estimated cost to repay the general obligation debt that would be authorized by the proposed amendment, including principal and interest, at a stated likely interest rate."

d Texas House Bill 739 was designed to establish restrictions "relating to ballot propositions authorizing certain political subdivisions to issue bonds."

d Texas House Bill 270 was designed to require constitutional amendment propositions to appear at the top of ballots.

d Texas House Bill 273 was designed to require the ballot to "identify the name of the authority ordering the election on the measure and assign a number to the measure that corresponds to the order in which it is placed on the ballot."

d Texas House Bill 151 was designed to require bond propositions to be held at regular elections in November instead of on a special or non-November election.

d Texas Senate Joint Resolution 54 would have authorized the state legislature to set an election date for a municipal charter amendment, a type of local ballot measure. It would have also provided an exception to the requirement that elections on municipal charter amendments be held at least two years apart if the legislature set the election date.

Utah

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Utah

a Utah House Bill 255 was designed to require a disclosure statement concerning the percentage of the tax increase to be added to the following items:

• the notice of the public hearing on the initiative;
• the fiscal impact statement;
• the voter information pamphlet; and
• the ballot title.

a Utah Senate Bill 69 was designed to require the following information to be provided to voters in a municipality with a proposition on the ballot in certain prescribed ways—including by mail, electronically, and online:

• the ballot title of the proposition;
• instructions about how to filed arguments in support of or opposition to the proposition;
• the deadlines for submitting such arguments.

Washington

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Washington

Washington Senate Bill 5386 was designed to do the following:

• require the submission of a statement of the intent of the measure with the initial filing of the initiative text;
• require the office of the code reviser and the office of the attorney general to offer advisory feedback to initiative proponents both as to the form and clarity of the language and the constitutionality of the initiative;
• establish a public review period for initiatives and provide for a process by which initiative proponents may amend initiatives;
• allow any person to file a judicial request to invalidate the measure based on allegations that it is unconstitutional; and
• require a filing fee of $500 for each initiative

Washington House Bill 1537 was designed to do the following:

• require any group that hires or plans to hire paid circulators to disclose information to the state about itself and any paid petition circulators;
• prohibit a group to pay hire someone as a signature gatherer based on certain conditions such as those convicted of crimes related to elections, signature petitions, fraud, and forgery;
• require a statement to be included on all petition forms and signed by all signature gatherers promising to not offer anything of value in exchange for signatures and acknowledging the that forgery on a petition is a class B felony and that offering anything in exchange for signatures is a gross misdemeanor.

Washington Senate Bill 5397 was designed to do the following:

• require any group that hires or plans to hire paid circulators to disclose information to the state about itself and any paid petition circulators;
• prohibit a group to pay hire someone as a signature gatherer based on certain conditions such as those convicted of crimes related to elections, signature petitions, fraud, and forgery;
• require a statement to be included on all petition forms and signed by all signature gatherers promising to not offer anything of value in exchange for signatures and acknowledging the that forgery on a petition is a class B felony and that offering anything in exchange for signatures is a gross misdemeanor.

Washington House Bill 1981 was designed to require the office of financial management to prepare a revenue equity statement that "must describe the projections for how the ballot measure would affect any projected increase or decrease in the average effective tax rate imposed directly or indirectly on Washington residents" for any ballot measure that that would have a certain tax impact on family income

Washington House Bill 1807 was designed to require additional campaign finance reporting requirements.

Washington Senate Bill 5219 was designed to require additional campaign finance reporting requirements.

Washington House Bill 2083 was designed to change the allowed special election dates, which would affect the dates on which certain ballot measures could be presented to voters.

West Virginia

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in West Virginia

d West Virginia House Joint Resolution 13 was designed to amend the state constitution to establish the powers of ballot initiative, veto referendum, and recall.

Wisconsin

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Wisconsin

Wisconsin Assembly Joint Resolution 71 was designed to amend the state constitution to establish the powers of ballot initiative and veto referendum.

Wyoming

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Wyoming

d Wyoming Senate File 12 was designed to repeal state law "allowing the recall of elected officials in cities and towns operated under a commission form of government."

See also

• Difficulty analysis of changes to laws governing ballot measures
• 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
• Changes in 2019 to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2018 to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2016 to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2015 to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2014 to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2013 to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2012 to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2011 to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2010 to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2009 to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2008 to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2007 to laws governing ballot measures