Changes in 2011 to laws governing ballot measures

Changes in 2012 →

<- Changes in 2010

* * *

Laws governing ballot measures

* * *

* * *

State
• Laws governing state initiative processes
• Laws governing state recall processes
• Changes to ballot measure law in 2026
• Analysis of 2025 changes to laws governing ballot measures
Local
• Laws governing local ballot measures

* * *

Learn about Ballotpedia's election legislation tracker.

* * *

2026 »

« 2024

## Contents

* 1 Laws approved in 2011
* 2 Legislation by state
* 2.1 Alabama
* 2.2 Alaska
* 2.3 Arizona
* 2.4 Arkansas
* 2.5 California
* 2.6 Colorado
* 2.7 Connecticut
* 2.8 Delaware
* 2.9 Florida
* 2.10 Hawaii
* 2.11 Illinois
* 2.12 Indiana
* 2.13 Louisiana
* 2.14 Maine
* 2.15 Maryland
* 2.16 Massachusetts
* 2.17 Michigan
* 2.18 Mississippi
* 2.19 Missouri
* 2.20 Montana
* 2.21 Nebraska
* 2.22 Nevada
* 2.23 New Hampshire
* 2.24 New Jersey
* 2.25 New Mexico
* 2.26 New York
* 2.27 North Carolina
* 2.28 North Dakota
* 2.29 Ohio
* 2.30 Oklahoma
* 2.31 Oregon
* 2.32 Pennsylvania
* 2.33 Rhode Island
* 2.34 South Carolina
* 2.35 South Dakota
* 2.36 Tennessee
* 2.37 Texas
* 2.38 Utah
* 2.39 Virginia
* 2.40 Washington
* 2.41 West Virginia
* 2.42 Wisconsin
* 3 See also
* 4 Footnotes

This page lists changes and proposed changes in 2011 to laws governing the initiative and referendum process. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 263 laws affecting this process were proposed in 41 states.[1] Given the complexity of the initiative process, these laws can address a wide range of initiative-related law, including:

* The legal right of citizens to initiate statutes, amendments, or veto referendums.
* Signature and distribution requirements for placing measures on the ballot.
* Regulations governing signature collection and petition circulators.
* Campaign finance requirements for initiative, referendum, and recall campaigns.
* Administrative rules, involving filing deadlines, fiscal analyses, petition forms, etc...

Note: This list is based on the National Conference of State Legislatures I&R Legislation Database. This database is only periodically updated. For a smaller but more up-to-date list, see our Ballot Law Update. For the status of a single bill, click the title to view its state bill status page.

Legend

= This legislation is still pending.
= This legislation was carried over to the next session.
a = This legislation was approved.
d = This legislation was defeated.

## Laws approved in 2011[edit]

In 2011, the following I&R laws were approved:

1. Colorado House Bill 1072 (2011)
2. Virginia Senate Bill 889 (2011)
3. Utah Senate Bill 165 (2011)
4. Montana House Bill 391 (2011)
5. California Senate Bill 168 (2011)
6. California Senate Bill 202 (2011)
7. Arizona House Bill 2304 (2011)
8. Arizona Senate Bill 1167 (2011)
9. California Assembly Bill 732 (2011)
10. Colorado House Bill 1035 (2011)
11. Florida House Bill 1355 (2011)
12. Louisiana House Concurrent Resolution 4 (2011)
13. Maine Legislative Document 1000 (2011)
14. Maine Legislative Document 1528 (2011)

## Legislation by state[edit]

### Alabama[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the Alabama State Legislature:

d Alabama House Bill 337: Bill description/summary: "Under existing law, the Constitution of Alabama of 1901 may be amended by the Legislature submitting a proposed constitutional amendment for ratification or rejection by the people which becomes effective upon ratification and proclamation. Laws must be enacted by the Legislature and generally become effective upon enactment or at a later date provided by the statute. This bill would propose an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901 to provide that the people also may propose the enactment of general laws and constitutional amendments by an initiative measure subject to the same limitations imposed on the Legislature and that the Legislature may offer an alternate proposal."[2]

d Alabama Senate Bill 491: Bill description/summary: "This bill would propose an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, authorizing the Legislature to provide by general law for recall of elected state officials."

d Alamaba Senate Bill 495: Bill description/summary: "This bill would propose an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, authorizing the Legislature to provide by general law for recall of elected state officials."

d Senate Joint Resolution 27: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "To call for a special election on the issue of calling a constitutional convention to revise and amend the Constitution of Alabama of 1901."

### Alaska[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Alaska

The following bills were introduced in the Alaska State Legislature:

Alaska House Bill 74: Bill description/summary: "An Act relating to election pamphlets; relating to information that must be provided for a bill under consideration by the legislature that authorizes the issuance of state general obligation bonds and to information that must be provided before the issuance of state general obligation bonds is submitted to the voters for ratification; and providing for an effective date."[3]

### Arizona[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Arizona

The following bills were introduced in the Arizona State Legislature:

a Arizona House Bill 2304 (2011): HB 2304 would alter the state's requirements for petition circulators, ease third-party primary access, and clarify laws regarding wearing political apparel at polling places. With respect to initiatives, the law would repeal the state's unconstitutional circulator residency requirement. However, it would replace this requirement with a requirement that out-of-state circulators register with the state.[4] Gov. Jan Brewer signed HB 2304 into law on April 29, 2011. Citizens in Charge Foundation rating:  Reduces initiative rights.

d Arizona House Bill 2365: HB 2304 proposes formatting changes for petition sheets.
d Arizona House Concurrent Resolution 2005: HCR 2005 proposes a constitutional amendment requiring half of the signatures necessary to place a measure on the ballot to be collected by volunteers.
d Arizona House Concurrent Resolution 2029: HCR 2029 proposes a constitutional amendment establishing a sunset/reauthorization requirement for all initiated measures (statute or amendment) that affect state revenue or expenditures. Measures would sunset after six fiscal years and be automatically subject to a popular vote for reauthorization. It would also apply retroactively to measure passed in 1998 and following.
d Arizona House Concurrent Resolution 2036: HCR 2029 proposes a constitutional amendment requiring legislatively referred measure to be placed on the primary ballot.
d Arizona Senate Bill 1075: SB 1075 proposes removing restriction on when recall elections may be held.
d Arizona Senate Bill 1077: SB 1077 proposes removing the requirement that circulators sign a notorized affidavit attesting to the validity of the signatures they collect. Replaces this requirement with the requirement that circulators simply sign a statement to the same effect.
a Arizona Senate Bill 1167 (2011): SB 1167 sets a deadline for challenges to referendum petitions. After the referendum has been filed with the Secretary of State, opponents have 10 days in even years and 20 days in odd years to file an action challenging the sufficiency of the referendum. The bill gives the Maricopa County Superior Court jurisdiction over these challenges with appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court. The bill also gives Speaker of the House and President of the Senate the right to intervene as a party in the case.
d Arizona Senate Concurrent Resolution 1027: SCR 1027 proposes a constitutional amendment establishing a sunset/reauthorization requirement for all initiated measures (statute or amendment) that affect state revenue or expenditures. Measures would sunset after 10 fiscal years and be automatically subject to a popular vote for reauthorization. It would also apply retroactively to measure passed in 1998 and following.
d Arizona Senate Concurrent Resolution 1051: SCR 1051 proposes a constitutional amendment allowing lawmakers to redirect funds designated for an initiative if those funds are insufficient to fully fund the measure. Existing law only allows funding reduction for a measure if its designated funding source is insufficient.

### Arkansas[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Arkansas

The following bills were introduced in the Arkansas State Legislature:

d Arkansas House Bill 2209: HB 2209 proposes prohibiting the use of public funds to support or oppose ballot measures. The bill would exempt elected officials from this restriction.

### California[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in California

The following bills were introduced in the California State Legislature:

d California Assembly Bill 1021: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "This bill would, based on the fiscal analysis by the Department of Finance and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, that a measure which would establish a new or expanded program costing more than $1,000,000 per in any year without providing new revenues or eliminating existing programs to offset those costs, require that specified language be provided to the Attorney General which may be included in the circulating title and summary advising that the proposed initiative does not include sufficient funding to pay the cost of the measure. Existing law directs the Legislative Analyst to prepare an unbiased fiscal analysis of a measure that is included in the ballot pamphlet stating whether the measure would result in increased or decreased costs to the state and an estimate of those costs or savings.[5]
California Assembly Bill 1232: Makes a minor change to the wording of Section 101 of the Elections Code.
California Assembly Bill 481: AB 481 would require petition circulators to wear a badge designating whether they are a paid or volunteer worker. The law, known to opponents as a "scarlet letter law," specifies that the terms “paid circulator,” “paid signature gatherer,” “volunteer,” or “volunteer signature gatherer” must be printed in at least 30 pt. font on the badge. Similar language must also appear on the petition sheets. The bill has been passed out of committee.[6][7] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating:  Reduces initiative rights.
dCalifornia Assembly Bill 65: "If the Legislative Analyst determines that an initiative measure on the ballot would have a fiscal impact on the General Fund for which additional revenues in an amount that meets or exceeds the net increase in costs are not provided, a statement be included in the ballot pamphlet that the initiative measure will have an impact on the state's General Fund, which will affect the ability of the Legislature to provide funding for enumerated General Fund purposes." Sponsor: Mike Gatto
d California Assembly Bill 651: AB 651 would require every group that hires petitions circulators to register with the state and pay a fee. It would additionally require that these groups review state law governing signature collection with petition circulators. Groups would have to provide signed statements verifying that this review had taken place. The bill additionally bans circulator contracts that make pay contingent on the measure's qualifying for the ballot.
a California Assembly Bill 732 (2011): Excerpt from bill description/summary: "This bill would, for state bond measures that are submitted to the voters for their approval or rejection, require the summary of the Legislative Analyst's estimate of the net state and local government fiscal impact to include an explanatory table of the information in the summary."[8]
d California Assembly Const. Amendment 5: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "This measure would, until January 1, 2020, prohibit an initiative measure from being submitted to the electors or from having any effect if the initiative measure appropriates state funds for any purpose in an amount exceeding the amount appropriated for that purpose for the 2004–05 fiscal year by more than $250,000 unless the measure provides for additional state revenue or offsetting savings in a total amount that is not less than the amount of the appropriation...This measure would also, until January 1, 2020, prohibit the Treasurer from offering for sale or issuing general obligation bonds unless the measure that authorized the sale or issuance of the bond provides for additional state revenue or offsetting savings in an amount necessary to repay the bond, including principal and interest payments."[9]

d California Assembly Const. Amendment 6: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "This measure would require the Legislative Analyst and the Director of Finance to review an initiative measure not later than 15 days after its qualification for the ballot, and report the results of the review to the Secretary of State. This measure would prohibit an initiative measure that the Legislative Analyst or the Director of Finance determines would result in a net increase in state or local government costs exceeding $5,000,000, other than costs attributable to the issuance, sale, or repayment of bonds, from being submitted to the electors or having any effect unless the Legislative Analyst, the Director of Finance, or both, as applicable, determine that the initiative measure provides for additional revenues in an amount that meets or exceeds the net increase in costs. This requirement would provide for an annual adjustment to the amount of that cost threshold, and would not apply to costs incurred due to a provision of an initiative measure that reduces tax revenues, or due to the administration of such a provision."[10]

California Assembly Const. Amendment 7: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "This measure would prohibit an initiative measure that would result in a net increase in state or local government costs other than costs attributable to the issuance, sale, or repayment of bonds, from being submitted to the electors or having any effect unless and until the Legislative Analyst and the Director of Finance jointly determine that the initiative measure provides for additional revenues in an amount that meets or exceeds the net increase in costs."[11]

California Assembly Const. Amendment 9: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "This measure would require that an initiative that would increase the current vote requirement for an action by either the electors or by the Legislature, or would impose an extraordinary vote requirement for the amendment of an initiative statute by the Legislature without approval by the electors, itself receive the same affirmative vote percentage in order to be approved by the electors."[12]

California Assembly Const. Amendment 10: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "This measure would instead authorize the Legislature to amend orrepeal an initiative statute, effective 4 years or more after the date the initiative statute is approved by the voters, unless the initiative statute allows that action by the Legislature at an earlier date. The measure would require that an amendment or repeal of an initiative statute by the Legislature be passed by a percentage of the membership of each house that exceeds the percentage of voters that approved the initiative statute or, if applicable, that approved the most recent amendment of the initiative statute."[13]

California Assembly Const. Amendment 11: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "This measure would increase the vote requirement from a majority to 55% of the votes cast for the electors to amend the Constitution by an initiative measure, except that this measure would permit the electors to repeal a previously adopted initiative or legislative amendment to the Constitution, including certain subsequent amendments to that constitutional amendment, by an initiative measure passed by a majority vote."[14]

California Assembly Const. Amendment 12: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "This measure would require the Secretary of State to transmit a copy of an initiative measure certified for the ballot to each house of the Legislature no later than 176 days prior to the election at which the measure is to be voted upon. Within 30 days, the Legislature may propose an amended form of the initiative measure by adopting a concurrent resolution." If the proponent(s) accept these changes the amended form of the measure would appear on the ballot.[15][16]

California Assembly Const. Amendment 19: ACA 19 proposes a measure substantially similar to ACA 12. However, it further provides that certified initiated statutes can be amended and adopted by the Legislature. The passage and amendment of the statute would be subject to the approval of the proponents and would be required to further the purposes of the measure. Statutes passed in this manner could only be amended or repealed with a two-thirds vote for the first six years and by a simple majority after that.[17]

d (Vetoed) California Senate Bill 168: SB 168 would ban pay-per-signature in the State of California. Violation of the law would constitute a misdemeanor offense. Current law does not prohibit the practice, but it does require that petition forms include a notice indicating that the circulator may or may not be a volunteer. Sponsor: Ellen Corbett. The California State Legislature passed SB 168, but Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed it.[18] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating:  Reduces initiative rights.

a California Senate Bill 202 (2011): Bill description/summary: SB 22 would require all elections on ballot propositions to take place only in Novembers of even-numbered years. This language was added to SB 22 shortly before it was passed by the California State Legislature in early September 2011. Prior to adding that language, the original bill, which was filed in February 2011 would have changed the filing fee for filing a ballot title from $200 to $2,000.[19]
d California Senate Bill 334
d California Senate Bill 448: SB 448, much like the recently shelved AB 481, would require petition circulators to wear a badge designating whether they are a paid or volunteer worker. Unlike AB 481, the bill also requires the badge to identify where in California the circulator is registered to vote. While the law does not require the circulator to be registered, unregistered circulators would be identified as "NOT REGISTERED TO VOTE." The bill's sponsor, Sen. Mark DeSaulnier (D), placed AB 481 in the "inactive file" after a house committee passed SB 448. SB 448 has already passed the California State Senate.[20][21] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating:  Reduces initiative rights.
d California Senate Bill 5: SB 5 would allow the proponent of a successful ballot initiative to join in the legal defense of that measure if its constitutionality were challenged. Sponsor: Tom Harman
California Senate Const. Amendment 4: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "This measure would prohibit an initiative measure that would result in a net increase in state or local government costs other than costs attributable to the issuance, sale, or repayment of bonds, from being submitted to the electors or having any effect unless and until the Legislative Analyst and the Director of Finance jointly determine that the initiative measure provides for additional revenues in an amount that meets or exceeds the net increase in costs."[22]
d California Senate Const. Amendment 5: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "The California Constitution conditions the imposition of a special tax by a city, county, or special district upon the approval of 2/3 of the voters of the city, county, or special district voting on that tax...This measure would alternatively condition the imposition, extension, or increase of a parcel tax, as defined, by a school district, community college district, or county office of education upon the approval of 55% of its voters voting on the proposition, if the proposition meets specified requirements."[23]

California Senate Const. Amendment 9: SCA 9 would permit the legislature to repeal or amend initiated statutes after 3 years. However, a change or repeal would require a majority in both houses that exceeds the margin of victory for the statute in question. The bill would not apply to past measures.

### Colorado[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Colorado

The following bills were introduced in the Colorado General Assembly:

a Colorado House Bill 1035 (2011): HB 1035, if enacted, will require the state's "ballot information booklet (blue book) or other publication of initiated and referred measures to contain a statement before each measure informing the voter that the title was drafted by professional staff and is a summary for ballot purposes only. The statement also informs voters that the text of a referred measure was thoroughly debated by the general assembly and that the text of an initiated measure was drafted by the initiative proponents. Finally, the statement for referred measures informs voters that the measure is included on the ballot because it has passed a majority vote of the state senate and the state house of representatives, while the statement for initiated measures states that the measure is included on the ballot because the proponents have gathered the required amount of petition signatures."
a Colorado House Bill 1072 (2011) HB 11-1072 creates several new requirements for initiative proponents. In particular, the bill requires proponents, within ten days of filing, to produce a report detailing all the expenditures relating to the circulation of the initiative. The report must include the dates of circulation, total hours worked, and gross wages earned by each circulator. After the report is filed, any registered voter may challenge the report within ten days. Initiative proponents then have ten days to correct the error or a judicial hearing is scheduled. If the judge determines that an intentional violation did occur, the proponents are subject to a fine equal to three times the omission. In addition, proponents may be subject to civil action by the voter who brought the challenge for the recovery of legal fees.[24] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating:  Reduces initiative rights.
d Colorado House Bill 1090: HB 1090 would make several stylistic changes to ballot titles. The changes are intended to clarify ballot titles and the meaning of a "yes" or "no" vote.

d Colorado House Bill 1304: Bill description/summary: "Section 1 of the bill requires the title board, when setting a title for a proposed initiated law or constitutional amendment, to write the title, to the extent possible, in plain, nontechnical language and in a clear and coherent manner using words with common and everyday meaning that are understandable to the average reader. Section 2 requires the same standard for the ballot title of a statewide referred measure."

d Colorado Senate Concurrent Resolution 1: SCR 1 was a constitutional amendment that would require proposed amendments to receive a 60% super-majority for passage. This requirement would not apply to amendments repealing, wholly or partially, amendments passed before 2013. In addition, the amendment would create a geographic requirement based on the state's congressional districts. While these provisions would make the initiative process more difficult, the bill would require lawmakers to earn a 2/3 majority to modify or repeal a ballot measure for three years following its passage.[25] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating:  Reduces initiative rights.

### Connecticut[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the Connecticut General Assembly:

d Connecticut House Bill 5335: HB 5335 proposes authorizing the recall of local elected officials.

d Connecticut House Bill 5919: HB 5919 proposes authorizing municipalities to establish criteria for recalling elected officials.

d House Joint Resolution 2: HJ 2 would amend the Connecticut Constitution to allow for initiative and referendum.

d Senate Joint Resolution 8: SJ 8 would amend the Connecticut Constitution to allow for initiative and referendum.

d Senate Joint Resolution 9: SJ 9 would amend the Connecticut Constitution to allow for initiative and referendum. Citizens in Charge Foundation rating:  Protects/expands initiative rights.

### Delaware[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the Connecticut General Assembly:

Delaware Senate Bill 72: SB 72 would amend the Delaware Constitution to allow for directly and indirectly initiated statutes.

Delaware Senate Bill 73: SB 73 would amend the Delaware Constitution to allow for veto referendum.

### Florida[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Florida

The following bills were introduced in the Florida State Legislature:

d Florida House Joint Resolution 1259: Bill description/summary: "Proposes amendment to s. 5, Art. XI of State Constitution to require amendments to or revisions of State Constitution to be presented to voters in form & manner prescribed by general law enacted by Legislature."[26]

d Florida House Bill 1261: Bill description/summary: "Revises terminology relating to election ballots; transfers to new subsection requirements applicable to joint resolutions; provides that joint resolution may include ballot summary or alternate ballot summaries, listed in order of preference, describing chief purpose of amendment or revision in clear & unambiguous language; requires joint resolution to specify placement on ballot of ballot title & either ballot summary embodied in joint resolution or full text of proposed amendment or revision; requires placement on ballot of full text of amendment or revision if court determines that each ballot summary embodied in joint resolution is defective unless Secretary of State certifies to court that placement of full text on ballot is incompatible with voting systems; requires Attorney General to revise ballot summary under certain circumstances; requires challenges to be filed within certain time; creates presumptions; establishes rules of construction; requires courts to accord challenges priority over other pending cases & issue orders expeditiously; provides for retroactive application."[27]

a Florida House Bill 1355 (2011): HB 1355 contains extensive modifications to Florida's election law. With respect to initiative and referendum, the bill cuts the signature gathering period from 4 to 2 years. It also shortens the window for challenging legislatively referred ballot questions.[28] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating:  Reduces initiative rights.

d Florida House Joint Resolution 785: HJR 785 proposes an amendment to the Florida Constitution, establishing a system for recalling the Governor, the Lt. Governor, a Cabinet member, or a legislator.

d Florida House Bill 787: HB 787 proposes legislation required to implement the system of recall proposed in HJR 785.

d Florida Senate Bill 1504: SB 1504 would reduce the petition circulation time from 4 years to 30 months. In addition, it would ban out-of-state petition circulators, per-signature payment, and petition circulators that have been convicted of fraud, forgery or identity theft in the past five years. If a petition sponsor is convicted of hiring circulators contrary to these provisions, the sponsor would be subject to criminal penalties. The bill's authors have included a severability clause since a legal challenge of the residency requirement is likely. Five circuit courts in other parts of the country have struck down residency requirements.[29][30] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating:  Reduces initiative rights.

d Florida Senate Bill 1700: SB 1700 proposes legislation required to implement the system of recall proposed in HJR 785.

d Florida Senate Bill 2086: Bill description/summary: "Expands the list of responsibilities of the Secretary of State when acting in his or her capacity as chief election officer. Replaces a requirement for the Department of State to print copies of a pamphlet containing the Election Code with a requirement that the pamphlet be made available. Requires that third-party voter registration organizations register with the Division of Elections. Requires such organizations to provide the division with certain information, etc."[31]

d Florida Senate Bill 7220: Bill description/summary: "Specifies a time period to initiate an action to challenge an amendment to the State Constitution proposed by the Legislature. Requires the court, including an appellate court, to accord the case priority over other cases. Requires the Attorney General to revise a ballot title or ballot summary for an amendment proposed by the Legislature under certain circumstances. Requires the Department of State to furnish a designating number and the revised ballot title and substance to the supervisor of elections, etc."[32]

### Hawaii[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the Hawaii State Legislature:

Hawaii House Bill 140: Bill description/summary: "Prohibits the counting of blank votes and overvotes in determining whether a proposed constitutional amendment has been ratified."[33]

Hawaii House Bill 195: Bill description/summary: "Proposes constitutional amendment to provide for initiative. Establishes provisions governing the initiative process."[34]

Hawaii House Bill 540: Bill description/summary: "Proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Hawaii to exclude blank ballots, over votes, and otherwise spoiled ballots from the total number of votes counted for the question of whether a constitutional convention shall be convened."[35]

Hawaii House Bill 542: Bill description/summary: "Repeals the exception that blank, spoiled, or invalid ballots are counted for passage or as votes cast for ratification of a constitutional amendment or the question whether to convene a constitutional convention."[36]

Hawaii Senate Bill 1195: Bill description/summary: "Requires the affirmative vote of at least fifty percent of ballots that are voted either YES or NO (which do not include blank votes) and at least forty percent of all ballots that are voted at a general election (which do include blank votes) or an affirmative vote of a majority of ballots that are voted either YES or NO, which must constitute at least thirty percent of the total number of registered voters at a special election for the adoption of a proposed constitutional amendment."[37]

Hawaii Senate Bill 272: SB 272 would amend the Hawaii Constitution to allow for initiative, referendum, and recall elections. Currently, Hawaiians can only vote on legislatively referred constitutional amendments.[38] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating:  Protects/expands initiative rights.
Hawaii Senate Bill 7: Bill description/summary: "Requires the chief election officer to provide a clear explanation for any ballot question or issue to every absentee voter."[39]

Hawaii Senate Bill 76 Bill description/summary: "Proposes a constitutional amendment to provide for a citizens assembly and to authorize the citizens assembly to propose constitutional and statutory revisions or amendments to the laws governing elections, political campaigns, campaign finance, ethics, referendum, reapportionment, legislative process, public access to information, and campaign finance, and to establish a referendum."[40]

Hawaii Senate Bill 949 Bill description/summary: "Clarifies that blank, spoiled, or invalid ballots shall not be tallied as votes cast in ratification of a constitutional amendment. Effective upon passage of conforming constitutional amendment."[41]

Hawaii Senate Bill 950 Bill description/summary: "Amends the Hawaii State Constitution to require a majority of more than fifty per cent of votes cast to ratify a proposed constitutional amendment and to exclude blank, spoiled, or invalid ballots from the tally of votes cast."[42]

### Illinois[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Illinois

The following bills were introduced in the Illinois General Assembly:

Illinois House Bill 1854: Excerpt of bill description/summary: "In provisions concerning petitions for constitutional amendments and statewide advisory public questions, provides that on 15th business day (now, the 10th business day) following the last day for petition filing, the State Board of Elections shall conduct a hearing at which the proponents may present arguments and evidence as to the conformity of any purported nonconforming petition signatures. In provisions concerning petition signature verification, requires that within 20 business days (now, 14 business days) following the last day for filing a petition, the State Board of Elections shall prepare and transit to each proper election authority a list of the signatures from its election jurisdiction selected for verification."[43]

Illinois House Bill 3438: Excerpt of bill description/summary: "Authorizes citizens to petition the General Assembly to pass one or more bills initiated by citizens that concern ethical standards of conduct or campaign finance reform. Provides that, if the bills do not become law, a question advising adoption and approval of the bills must be placed on the next general election ballot. Specifies procedures for the drafting of bills and the filing of petitions."[44]

Illinois House Bill 97: HB 97 would allow for the recall of local elected officials in Illinois.[45] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating:  Protects/expands initiative rights.

House Joint Resolution Const. Amendment 21: Excerpt of bill description/summary: "Provides for elections to recall State executive branch officers except for the Governor, members of the General Assembly, and elected salaried officers of units of local government."

House Joint Resolution Const. Amendment 27: Excerpt of bill description/summary: "Provides for elections to recall State executive branch officers and members of the General Assembly."

House Joint Resolution Const. Amendment 28: Excerpt of bill description/summary: " Provides for elections to recall State executive branch officers and members of the General Assembly. Changes the signature requirements for affidavits and petitions for recall of the Governor."

### Indiana[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the Indiana General Assembly:

d Indiana House Bill 1140: Excerpt of bill description/summary: "Establishes a procedure for the recall of a person who holds a state, legislative, local, or school board office (other than a justice, judge, or prosecuting attorney) or who is appointed to an office of the state or a political subdivision."

### Louisiana[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the Louisiana State Legislature:

a Louisiana House Concurrent Resolution 4 (2011): HCR 4 would require constitutional amendment ballot language to be phrased as a question and written in "plain language."

### Maine[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Maine

The following bills were introduced in the Maine State Legislature:

d Maine Legislative Document 97: Excerpt of bill description/summary: "This resolution proposes to amend the Constitution of Maine to provide that the Legislature may not make a change to a measure initiated and approved by vote of the people for 8 years after that measure takes effect if that change is contrary to the general intent of that measure."

a Maine Legislative Document 1000 (2011): Excerpt of bill description/summary: "The bill...creates a resolve directing the Secretary of State to examine the feasibility of centralizing the process for verifying signatures on candidate petitions, citizens' initiatives and people's veto referendum petitions."

a Maine Legislative Document 1528 (2011): LD 1528 makes a number of changes to state election law. With respect to ballot measures, the bill would clarify "the requirements for the information that is created to help voters understand ballot questions, including the Attorney General's explanatory statement of what a 'yes' vote favors and what a 'no' vote opposes; the Office of Fiscal and Program Review's estimate of the fiscal impact on state revenues, appropriations and allocations of each ballot measure; and the Treasurer's Statement that accompanies each bond issue."[46]

### Maryland[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the Maryland General Assembly:

d H 13a

d Maryland House Bill 101: HB 101 would prohibit harassment and intimidation in collecting signatures or in preventing them from being collected.[47] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating:  Protects/expands initiative rights.

d Maryland House Bill 337: Excerpt of bill description/summary: "Adding a new article to the Maryland Constitution requiring the General Assembly to pass laws necessary to establish standards and procedures for recall elections for the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, and Comptroller, and elected and appointed members of the General Assembly, if any of these State officials have been indicted for or convicted of a felony; and submitting this amendment to the qualified voters of the State for their adoption or rejection."

### Massachusetts[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the Massachusetts General Court:

Massachusetts House Bill 1822: HB 1822 would introduce a subject restriction preventing initiatives from addressing regulations on hunting or fishing.

Massachusetts House Bill 1830: H 1830 would more than double Massachusetts' signature requirements for initiatives, amendments, and referenda. To refer an initiative or amendment to the legislature, the requirement would jump from signatures equaling 3% of votes cast in the last gubernatorial election to signatures equaling 7%. To override the legislature and place the measure on the ballot, the requirement would jump from .5% to 1.5%. In addition, the bill would double the current referendum requirement of 2%.[48][49] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating:  Reduces initiative rights.
Massachusetts House Bill 203: HB 203 would set a $500 cap on any contribution to a ballot measure campaign.

Massachusetts House Bill 206: HB 206 would create an extensive badge requirement in MA. Each petition circulator would be required to wear a badge (or similar tag) including his/her full name, the name of the organization for whom they collect signatures, the full names of all other persons or organizations hired by the that organization to collect signatures, and the amount the circulator is being paid. The bill also sets fines for non-compliance.

Massachusetts House Bill 207: HB 207 would prohibit paying circulators, in any form, for collecting signatures. A similar law was found unconstitutional in Meyer v. Grant.[50] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating:  Reduces initiative rights.

Massachusetts House Bill 2735: HB 2735 would create a system for registering paid circulators and the organizations that hire them. A fee would be charged to registrants as necessary to maintain the database. Among other things, circulators would have to provide affidavits attesting to their legal eligibility to circulate petitions. Signatures gathered by paid but unregistered circulators would not be valid. The law would also ban pay-per-signature.

Massachusetts House Bill 529: HB 529 proposes a constitutional amendment restricting the subject matter of future initiated constitutional amendments. The text of the measure is as follows: "No initiative petition shall propose a constitutional amendment that would restrict 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."[51] The bill has been passed out of committee and called for consideration during the joint session.[52] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating:  Reduces initiative rights.

Massachusetts Senate Bill 12: SB 12 proposes a constitutional amendment. Amendment text: "No initiative petition shall propose a constitutional amendment that would restrict 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."

Massachusetts Senate Bill 13:

Massachusetts Senate Bill 314: SB 314 would create a system for registering paid circulators and the organizations that hire them. A fee would be charged to registrants as necessary to maintain the database. Among other things, circulators would have to provide affidavits attesting to their legal eligibility to circulate petitions. Signatures gathered by paid but unregistered circulators would not be valid. The law would also ban pay-per-signature.

### Michigan[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Michigan

The following bills were introduced in the Michigan State Legislature:

Michigan Senate Bill 5063

Michigan Senate Bill 88: SB 88 would require that petitions indicate whether the circulator is paid and by whom he or she is employed.

Michigan Senate Bill 629

HB 5059

HJR GG

SB 823

### Mississippi[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Mississippi

The following bills were introduced in the Mississippi State Legislature:

a Mississippi House Bill 1457: Bill description/summary: "S.O.S. may make nonsubstantive correction in section number designation in proposed voter initiative."

d Mississippi House Bill 272: Bill description/summary: "Public employee; prohibit from using a public resource for a candidate's campaign or ballot issue."

d Mississippi Senate Bill 2297: Bill description/summary: "School bonds; require 55% vote to pass."

d Mississippi Senate Bill 2556: Bill description/summary: "Recall election procedures for local officials by referendum; specifically include local school board members."

### Missouri[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Missouri

The following bills were introduced in the Missouri General Assembly:

Missouri House Bill 521: Excerpt of bill description/summary: "This bill establishes a procedure by which an ambulance district board member may be recalled from office by the registered voters of the member's election district."

Missouri House Bill 535: Excerpt of bill description/summary: "This bill changes the laws regarding the circulation of initiative and referendum petitions. In its main provisions, the bill: (1) Requires a petition circulator to be a citizen of the United States, to show proof of being a resident of Missouri, to register with the Secretary of State before collecting signatures, and to affirm that these requirements have been satisfied; (2) Specifies that a person must not qualify as a petition circulator if he or she has been convicted of, found guilty of, or pled guilty to any offense involving or considered forgery."

Missouri House Bill 856: HB 865 would change a number state statutes governing the I&R process. Among other things, the bill would prevent any technical error, except those made by signers themselves, from invalidating a signature. In addition, the bill would require each page of a petition to include an affidavit indicating whether the circulator is being paid. The bill would make it a crime to deceive someone into signing a petition they did not intend to sign. Also, the bill would make it a crime to obstruct signature gathering by force or intimidation. The bill would also establish new rules for challenging ballot titles.

Missouri House Joint Resolution 16: HJR 16 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would change Missouri's geographic distribution requirement. Currently, petitioners must collect signatures equaling 8% of the vote cast for governor in six of the state's nine US Congressional districts. Under the proposed amendment, petitioners would have to collect these signatures in all nine of the districts.[53] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating:  Reduces initiative rights.

Missouri House Joint Resolution 20: Bill description/summary: "Upon voter approval, this proposed constitutional amendment changes the laws regarding the repeal or modification by the General Assembly of a statutory provision of a referendum that was passed by voters. During the first general assembly session after the effective date of the statute, the General Assembly cannot repeal or modify a statutory provision of a referendum without a two-thirds majority vote; without a four-sevenths majority vote during the second session after the effective date of the statute; or without a simple majority vote after the third session of the General Assembly after the effective date of the statute."

Missouri House Joint Resolution 21: Bill description/summary: "Upon voter approval, this proposed constitutional amendment changes the laws regarding the repeal or modification by the General Assembly of a statutory provision of a referendum that was passed by voters. During the first general assembly session after the effective date of the statute, the General Assembly cannot repeal or modify a statutory provision of a referendum without a two-thirds majority vote; without a four-sevenths majority vote during the second session after the effective date of the statute; or without a simple majority vote after the third session of the General Assembly after the effective date of the statute."

Missouri House Joint Resolution 23: Bill description/summary: "Upon voter approval, this proposed constitutional amendment changes the requirements for submitting an initiative petition that proposes an amendment to the Missouri Constitution or a referendum petition to establish or amend a state law. Currently, an initiative petition must be signed by 8% of the legal voters in each of two-thirds of the state's Congressional districts before it can be placed on the ballot. The resolution requires 15% of the legal voters in each of the Congressional districts to sign the petition. The number of signatures required for an initiative petition or a referendum petition is also increased from 5% to 10% of those voters."

Missouri Senate Joint Resolution 13: Bill description/summary: "Upon voter approval, petitions for a referendum shall be signed by 5% of the legal voters in each of the congressional districts in the state instead of by 5% of the legal voters in each of 2/3 of the districts. Similarly, petitions for initiatives proposing constitutional changes shall be signed by 8% of the legal voters in each of the congressional districts in the state instead of by 8% of the legal voters in each of 2/3 of the districts."

### Montana[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Montana

The following bills were introduced in the Montana State Legislature:

a Montana House Bill 310: HB 310 would require ballot and petition language to clearly indicate the meaning of a "yes" or a "no" vote.

d Montana Senate Bill 162: SB 162 would require the state to reimburse local governments for costs associated with placing legislatively referred measures on the ballot.

d Montana Senate Bill 204: SB 204 is a legislatively referred constitutional amendment which would raise the signature requirement from 10% to 20% of qualified electors. It would also change the basis of the state's distribution requirement from counties to legislative districts.

a Montana House Bill 391 (2011): HB 391 was passed by the Montana Legislature on March 28, 2011 and has since become law. The law prohibits local ballot measure from setting the enforcement priority of state laws. The law is seen as targeting a local ballot measure which instructed local law enforcement to make marijuana laws their lowest priority.[54][55] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating:  Reduces initiative rights.

### Nebraska[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Nebraska

The following bills were introduced in the Nebraska Legislature:

Nebraska Legislative Bill 117: Excerpt of bill description/summary: "LB 117 changes the publication requirements for constitutional amendments proposed by the Legislature and initiative and referendum measures. The bill requires a notice be placed in the newspaper directing citizens to a Secretary of State website where the full text of the constitutional amendment or initiative and referendum measures can be read."

d Nebraska Legislative Bill 187: Excerpt of bill description/summary: "To provide a higher threshold for petition signatures when a signature is valid not withstanding the signer's failure to have voted in the election that is the subject of the recall petition."

d Nebraska Legislative Bill 188: Excerpt of bill description/summary: "To limit the ability to petition for recall to those who exercised their civic responsibility to vote in the election which is the subject of the recall petition."

Nebraska Legislative Bill 224: Excerpt of bill description/summary: "With LB 224, the reasons for which a recall may be sought are limited to malfeasance in office, misfeasance in office, nonfeasance in office, or conviction of a crime involving an act of dishonesty or a false statement. Malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance are defined in the bill. Currently, recall efforts do not need to be based on specific reason."

Nebraska Legislative Bill 523: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "LB 523 requires the sponsor or principal circulator of a petition to provide each petition circulator with a form of identification that is visible to each prospective signer. Each identification shall contain a unique number and other information determined by the Secretary of State, but shall not contain the name or other personal information of the circulator. Under the bill, the sponsor or principal circulator is required to maintain records of each circulator. The records shall be available for purposes of investigation upon request by the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, or law enforcement... LB 523 does not change the rights or qualifications of petition signers, circulators orsponsors. Petition requirements remain the same under the bill."

Nebraska Legislative Bill 566: Excerpt of bill description/summary: "LB 566 provides an optional way to collect signatures by using much the same mechanisms as are widely used for electronic signature of other government documents and in commerce."

d Nebraska Legislative Bill 610: Bill description/summary: "LB 610 provides for the recall of state elective or appointed officers."

d Nebraska Legislative Resolution 45, Const. Amendment: Bill description/summary: "LR 45CA authorizes the recall of an elected or appointed to a state elective office."

### Nevada[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Nevada

The following bills were introduced in the Nevada State Legislature:

d Nevada Assembly Bill 502: AB 502 would change the order of items on the ballot, placing legislatively referred measures after national offices.

a Nevada Assembly Bill 81: Excerpt of bill description/summary: "Sections 7-12 and 64 of this bill provide that the signature and verification requirements for initiative petitions also apply to petitions for referendum... Section 65 of this bill requires the affidavit executed by a circulator of a petition for initiative or referendum to include the contact information of the circulator and a statement that the circulator is at least 18 years of age."

a Nevada Assembly Bill 82: Excerpt of bill description/summary: "Sections 48, 54 and 84 of this bill remove requirements that certain persons or groups who advocate the passage or defeat of a ballot question register. As a result, these persons and groups are subject to the same registration requirements as committees for political action. Under existing law, such persons and groups are not required to report contributions and expenditures until they have received or expended money in excess of $10,000 to advocate the passage or defeat of a ballot question. (NRS 294A.150, 294A.220) Sections 48 and 54 eliminate this threshold and therefore require these persons or groups to report contributions received and expenditures made in excess of $1,000 during any reporting period. "

a Nevada Senate Bill 133: SB 133 would change the basis of the state's distribution requirement to Congressional districts, and requires signers to include their Congressional district on the petition (if known). The bill also gives petitioners an additional month to submit signatures and requires petition gatherers to include their address on their certifying affidavit. In addition, SB 133 allows county clerks to use random sample verification for petitions. 500 or 5% of the signatures, whichever is greater, must be verified.

d Nevada Senate Bill 170: Excerpt of bill description/summary: "Section 1 of this bill requires the formation of a petitioners’ committee consisting of any five registered voters of this State before the commencement of statewide initiative or referendum proceedings. Section 1 also authorizes four of the five members of the petitioners’ committee to withdraw a petition for statewide initiative or referendum."

d Nevada Senate Bill 241: Excerpt of bill description/summary: "During the 2009 Legislative Session, the Legislature required the creation of petition districts and that each initiative petition be signed by a number of registered voters in each petition district in the State that equals at least 10 percent of the voters who voted in that petition district at the last preceding general election... This bill provides that petition districts are conterminous with the districts used to elect the members of the Board of Regents of the University of Nevada."

### New Hampshire[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the New Hampshire General Court:

d New Hampshire Const. Amendment Concurrent Resolution 3: Bill description/summary: "This constitutional amendment concurrent resolution permits citizens to initiate by petition ballot questions to enact laws."

d New Hampshire House Bill 73: Bill description/summary: "This bill establishes a process for recall of United States Senators from New Hampshire."

### New Jersey[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the New Jersey State Legislature:

d New Jersey Assembly Bill 1804: AB 1804 would reduce the number of signatures required for a recall petition.

New Jersey Assembly Bill 2557: AB 2557 would allow the recall process to begin earlier and allow recall petitioners a period of 10 days to collect supplementary signatures should their petition be found insufficient.

d New Jersey Assembly Bill 2633: AB 2633 would allow the recall process to begin earlier and effectively lower the signature requirement by changing the basis of the requirement from registered to actual voters.

d New Jersey Assembly Bill 694: Bill description/summary: "Requires interpretive statements of State general obligation bond act public questions to include certain fiscal information."

d New Jersey Assembly Bill 783: Bill description/summary: "Requires ballot question on approval of State bond issue to disclose total amount of debt of State or other entity, debt service on which is funded through annual State appropriation."

d New Jersey Assembly Concurrent Resolution 123: ACR 123 proposes a constitutional amendment that would effectively lower the signature requirement by changing the basis of the requirement from registered to actual voters.

d New Jersey Assembly Concurrent Resolution 16: ACR 16 proposes a constitutional amendment to remove exceptions to voter approval on the issuance of debt by autonomous public corporations.

d New Jersey Assembly Concurrent Resolution 30: Bill description/summary: "Proposes constitutional amendment to provide for Statewide initiative and referendum for directing State fiscal restraint."

d New Jersey Assembly Concurrent Resolution 74: Bill description/summary: "Proposes constitutional amendment to establish initiative process for limited purpose of overturning New Jersey Supreme Court decisions or statutes."

d New Jersey Assembly Concurrent Resolution 83: Bill description/summary: "Proposes constitutional amendment to provide for Statewide initiative and referendum."

d New Jersey Assembly Concurrent Resolution 97: Bill description/summary: "Proposes constitutional amendment to reduce number of signatures required on petition to recall elected official."

d New Jersey Senate Bill 2484: SB 2484 would allow the recall process to begin earlier and effectively lower the signature requirement by changing the basis of the requirement from registered to actual voters.

New Jersey Senate Concurrent Resolution 13: Bill description/summary: "Proposes constitutional amendment to provide for Statewide initiative and referendum for directing State fiscal restraint."

d New Jersey Senate Concurrent Resolution 138: SCR 138 proposes a constitutional amendment that would effectively lower the signature requirement by changing the basis of the requirement from registered to actual voters.

d New Jersey Senate Concurrent Resolution 86: Bill description/summary: "Proposes constitutional amendment to provide for Statewide initiative and referendum."

### New Mexico[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in New Mexico

The following bills were introduced in the New Mexico State Legislature:

d New Mexico House Bill 535: Bill description/summary: "Relating to elections; creating bond election day; requiring certain elections to be held on bond election day; amending and enacting certain sections of the NMSA 1978."

d New Mexico House Joint Resolution 12: Bill description/summary: "Proposing an amendment to Article 20 of the Constitution of New Mexico to allow the recall of public officers elected to a congressional office or a constitutionally created elective office in the executive or legislative branch of government."

d New Mexico Senate Bill 111: Bill description/summary: "Relating to elections; restricting the use of public funds to influence the outcome of certain ballot measures."

### New York[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the New York State Legislature:

New York Assembly Bill 234: Bill description/summary: "Provides for the state board of elections to prepare and distribute to each voter a ballot pamphlet for every general election; provides for contents thereof and makes numerous related provisions including the distribution of information relating to each ballot proposal that is submitted to a statewide vote at such general election; permits any person eligible to vote on any ballot proposal to institute a proceeding as to the factual accuracy of statements or constitutional amendments."

New York Assembly Bill 1226: Bill description/summary: "Provides for the state board of elections to prepare and distribute to each voter a ballot pamphlet for every general election; provides for contents thereof and makes numerous related provisions including the distribution of information relating to each ballot proposal that is submitted to a statewide vote at such general election; provides that candidates may submit a biography to be included in the statewide election pamphlet; permits any person eligible to vote on any ballot proposal to institute a proceeding as to the factual accuracy of statements or constitutional amendments."

New York Assembly Bill 1504: Bill description/summary: "Requires that any ballot proposition creating a state debt shall contain an estimate of the amortization period and the total expected debt service payable thereon until the bonds issued pursuant to such proposition are retired; relates to deposits to the tax stabilization reserve fund; provides that at least 10% of any surplus shall be used to pay down state debt."

New York Assembly Bill 1518: Bill description/summary: "Requires that any ballot proposition creating a state debt shall contain an estimate of the amortization period and the total expected debt service payable thereon until the bonds issued pursuant to such proposition are retired."

New York Assembly Bill 1545: Bill description/summary: "Requires state board of elections to publish on its website for one week a brief statement relating to proposed constitutional amendments that will appear on the ballot."

New York Assembly Bill 8636 Bill description/summary: "Provides for the state board of elections to prepare and distribute to each voter a ballot pamphlet for every general election; provides for contents thereof and makes numerous related provisions including the distribution of information relating to each ballot proposal that is submitted to a statewide vote at such general election; provides that candidates may submit a biography to be included in the statewide election pamphlet; permits any person eligible to vote on any ballot proposal to institute a proceeding as to the factual accuracy of statements or constitutional amendments."

New York Concurrent Resolution 1493: Bill description/summary: "Provides for the recall power of the electors to remove an elective officer."

New York Concurrent Resolution 1519: Bill description/summary: "Prohibits certain public officers (governor, lieutenant governor, comptroller, legislator, congress, judge) from also serving as a delegate to a constitutional convention and authorizes limited conventions to consider amendments involving the limited topics herein contained (Art. 3, legislature; Art. 4, governor; Art. 7, state finances)."

New York Concurrent Resolution 2089: Bill description/summary: "Establishes a procedure for a people's veto of laws enacted by the legislature."

New York Concurrent Resolution 3380: Bill description/summary: "Reserves to the people of the state the power to propose laws and amendments to the constitution and to adopt or reject such proposals upon a referendum; provides petition procedures for placing such proposals on the ballot; limits use of referendums relating to laws for health and safety; requires referendums for expenditure of moneys to clearly state the source of such funds; prohibits governor from vetoing approved proposals."

New York Concurrent Resolution 4978: Bill description/summary: "Provides for initiative and referendum in New York State for the People as electors to propose or reject laws and submit amendments to the state constitution."

New York Concurrent Resolution 6501: Bill description/summary: "Establishes an initiative and referendum process so that voters are able to bring issues to the state legislature for consideration; defines the term "initiative" as the power of the electors to propose amendments to the constitution and to propose laws; defines the term "referendum" as the power of the electors to approve or reject laws or parts of laws passed by the legislature."

New York Concurrent Resolution 6526: Bill description/summary: "Provides for initiative and referendum and recall; empowers the electors with the ability to propose statutes and amendments to the constitution, to approve or reject statutes or parts of statutes; and to remove elective officers."

New York Senate Bill 982: Bill description/summary: "This bill would provide the voting public with more accurate information regarding the overall costs of any proposed bond acts by requiring that the ballot proposition include information on the length of the amortization period and the total expected debt service."

New York Senate Bill 2100: Bill description/summary: "This bill would amend § 4-108 and 4-116 of the Election Law and § 54-a of the Legislative Law to require that the State Legislature draft the form and abstract of a ballot proposal to be put to a statewide vote. The language, to be put to these voters, would be contained in a concurrent resolution or bill passed by the State Legislature. Ballot proposals to be submitted to a local vote would be prepared by local counsel. Currently, the State Board of Elections has sole authority over the form and abstract, with the Attorney General providing advice. This bill would also make certain technical amendments to section 4-108 of the Election Law."

New York Senate Bill 5516: Bill description/summary: "To establish a process for recall elections for state and local elected officials."

New York Concurrent Resolution 2453: Bill description/summary: "To foster greater participatory democracy in New York State by allowing voters to: 1) place proposed laws on the ballot for New Yorkers to adopt or reject ("initiative"); 2) place an already existing law on the ballot for New Yorkers to reject or accept ("referendum "); and 3) place the question of whether to remove and replace a public official on the ballot ("recall")."

New York Concurrent Resolution 4001: Bill description/summary: "CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE AND ASSEMBLY proposing an amendment to the constitution, in relation to providing the electors with the power of initiative, indirect initiative and referendum."

New York Concurrent Resolution 4866: Bill description/summary: "Establishes a procedure for a people's veto of laws enacted by the legislature."

New York Concurrent Resolution 5190: Bill description/summary: "This constitutional amendment will give voters the ability to recall local and statewide elected officers, state senators, assembly members, supreme court judges and trial court judges."

New York Senate Concurrent Resolution 709: S 709 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would establish initiative and referendum in New York. The amendment would require petitioners to gather signatures equaling 5% of the vote in the last gubernatorial election. Petitioners would also have to collect a minimum of 5,000 signatures from 3/5 of New York's congressional districts. The bill will ultimately require voter approval in two consecutive elections in order to amend the state constitution.[56] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating:  Protects/expands initiative rights.

### North Carolina[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the General Assembly of North Carolina:

d North Carolina House Bill 315: Bill excerpt: "The form of the [bond] question as stated on the ballot shall include (i) the amount of principal and the estimated total amount of interest and cost of debt resulting from the proposed bond, as calculated by the State Treasurer, and (ii) a statement indicating that approval of the general obligation bond does not require the issuance of the general obligation bond."

### North Dakota[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in North Dakota

The following bills were introduced in the North Dakota Legislative Assembly:

d North Dakota House Bill 1295: HB 1295 would require voter approval for municipal building projects. Fire, police, and EMS projects are exempted from this requirement. The bill would also require school construction, purchase, renovation projects to have the approval of the superintendent.

a North Dakota House Bill 1311: HB 1311 would extend financial disclosure requirements to any organization circulating initiative petitions. Currently, the requirements (disclosure of all contributions greater than $100 dollars) only apply to committees promoting or opposing measures. The disclosure filing would be due upon the filing of petition signatures.

d North Dakota House Concurrent Resolution 3051: HCR 3051 proposes an amendment to the North Dakota Constitution which would allow the "legislative assembly to submit proposed laws to the electorate for approval if the electorate previously placed the proposed law on the ballot."

a North Dakota Senate Bill 2073: SB 2073 clarifies the definition of "direct expenditure" and changes the disclosure requirements for corporations, cooperatives, and associations.

### Ohio[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Ohio

The following bills were introduced in the Ohio General Assembly:

a Ohio House Bill 194: HB 194 is an extensive election overhaul bill. For a detailed summary of its provisions, see the official bill analysis. HB 194 was targeted for a veto referendum. Ultimately, the legislature repealed HB 194, precluding the necessity for a referendum election. See also: Ohio Election Law Veto Referendum (2012) for details.

Ohio House Bill 203: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "To enact new section 3.11 of the Revised Code to establish a process for recalling statewide elected officials and members of the General Assembly."

Ohio House Bill 343:

Ohio Senate Bill 148: SB 148 is an extensive election overhaul bill. For a detailed summary of its provisions, see the official bill analysis.

d HCR 24: Concerning the preparation of argument for and against proposed constitutional amendments.

SJR 3

### Oklahoma[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Oklahoma

The following bills were introduced in the Oklahoma State Legislature:

Oklahoma House Bill 1225: Bill description/summary: "HB 1225, as introduced, requires parties that submit an initiative petition or referendum that requires a funding source to also submit a statement outlining all sources of funding to be used in the measure to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General."

a Oklahoma House Bill 1664 (2011): HB 1664 provides for the notification of initiative proponents regarding the title status of a ballot initiative.[57] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating:  Protects/expands initiative rights.

Oklahoma House Bill 1718: HB 1718 proposes a range of amendments to Oklahoma's ballot measure statutes, specifically: "requiring gist statement to be submitted to Secretary of State; providing procedures for certain appeal to Supreme Court; prohibiting further challenge; modifying size of sheets for signatures on such petitions; modifying certain notarization and affidavit requirement; making language gender neutral; requiring publication of notice of filing and ballot title of petition; requiring notice of right to protest constitutionality and ballot title; specifying filing requirements and time for filing such protests; specifying certain duties of Secretary of State and Supreme Court; allowing for revival of protest; modifying time period for signed copies of petition to be filed; prohibiting petition blocking; defining term; providing for codification; and providing an effective date."[58]

Oklahoma Senate Joint Resolution 37: SJR 37 would introduce a geographic distribution requirement for Oklahoma. Currently, petitioners must gather signatures equaling 8% of the vote cast for governor in the last election. Under SJR 37, petitioners would have to collect signatures equaling 8% of the vote cast for governor in each congressional district. Thus, while the total requirement would remain unchanged, petitioners would have to collect a portion of those of signature from each congressional district.[59] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating:  Reduces initiative rights.

### Oregon[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Oregon

The following bills were introduced in the Oregon State Legislature:

a Oregon House Bill 2257: Bill description/summary: "House Bill 2257 Allows for or requires the electronic filing of certain documents with the Secretary of State for inclusion in voters’ pamphlets. The measure requires the Secretary of State to adopt an electronic filing system for the filing of these documents using the Internet."[60]

d Oregon House Bill 2258: HB 2258 would direct the Oregon Secretary of State to create an election law telephone hotline and empower the Elections Division to more rigorously investigate violations. In addition, the law would require petitioning organizations to collect extensive payroll information for petition circulators.[61] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating:  Reduces initiative rights.

d Oregon House Bill 2264: Bill description/summary: "Provides for constitutional convention in 2015. Establishes qualifications for delegates, number of delegates and manner of electing delegates. Requires that chairperson of convention certify proposed Constitution to Secretary of State no later than August 21, 2015. Requires that Secretary of State submit proposed Constitution to people for approval or rejection at special election to be held on November 3, 2015. Creates Constitutional Commission to make recommendations to constitutional convention and serve as resource for advice and consultation to constitutional convention. Refers Act to people for their approval or rejection at next regular general election."

d Oregon House Bill 2422: Bill description/summary: "Prohibits providing postage prepaid for signature sheet for petition or prospective petition for state measure to be initiated. Declaring emergency, effective on passage.

d Oregon House Bill 2431: Bill description/summary: "Requires estimates, portraits, statements and arguments included in voters' pamphlet regarding statewide candidates or measures to be filed electronically with Secretary of State."

d Oregon House Bill 2441: Bill description/summary: "Modifies provisions relating to inclusion of names or titles of persons or organizations in argument or statement in voters' pamphlet."

a Oregon House Bill 2634: Bill description/summary: "Creates 11-member Citizens’ Initiative Review Commission to facilitate the review by citizen panels of one or more initiative petitions to be voted upon at the next general election. Specifies terms of office and appointment procedures for Commission members. Establishes criteria for selection of initiative(s) to be reviewed, as well as for moderators and citizens to be selected for each panel. Directs Commission to compensate panel members as determined by administrative rule. Directs panels to prepare and file statements in favor and opposed to the measure under review, along with a statement of key findings. Directs the Secretary of State to print the citizen review panel statements in the voters’ pamphlet."[62]

d Oregon House Bill 2775: Bill description/summary: "Specifies circumstances under which Secretary of State may invalidate or exclude signatures from statistical sampling used to verify signatures on state initiative or referendum petition."

d Oregon House Bill 2776: HB 2776 requires the state to return a list of rejected signatures to the chief petitioners. Persons whose signature is ruled invalid are permitted, under the law, to contact the Secretary of State or county clerk and verify their signature. On certain petitions, the law exempts the personal information of public safety officers from disclosure.[63] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating:  Protects/expands initiative rights.

d Oregon House Bill 2896: Bill description/summary: "Directs court to award certain damages in action involving false statement of material fact relating to candidate, political committee or measure."

d Oregon House Bill 3007: Bill description/summary: "Modifies requirements for ballot title of state measure referred to people by referendum petition."

d Oregon House Bill 3491: Bill description/summary: "Modifies provisions relating to inclusion of names or titles of persons or organizations in argument or statement in voters' pamphlet."

d Oregon House Bill 3643: Bill description/summary: "Modifies certain provisions relating to state initiative measures that require appropriation or expenditure of public moneys. Takes effect only if House Joint Resolution 40 (2011) is approved by people at next regular general election. Takes effect on effective date of constitutional amendment proposed in House Joint Resolution 40 (2011)."

d Oregon House Joint Resolution 40: Bill description/summary: "Proposes amendment to Oregon Constitution to require that initiative petition proposing law or constitutional amendment with fiscal impact also provide new tax or fee or increase in rate of existing tax or fee to cover immediate and future costs of law or amendment. Refers proposed amendment to people for their approval or rejection at next regular general election."

d Oregon Senate Bill 159: Bill description/summary: "Makes payment for signature gathering for initiative or referendum petition based on number of signatures obtained for violation of wage and hour statutes."

d Oregon Senate Bill 267: Bill description/summary: "Requires chief petitioner of initiative or referendum petition to disclose system of bonuses, incentives or payment or minimum expectation of signatures to be obtained. Prohibits system of bonuses, incentives or payment with effect of paying person per signature obtained. Modifies liability of contractors or subcontractors of chief petitioner with knowledge of violation of law or rule related to circulation of initiative or referendum petition. Provides confidential reporting of certain violations of election law or rule."

d Oregon Senate Bill 274: Bill description/summary: "Prohibits providing postage prepaid for signature sheet for petition or prospective petition for state measure to be initiated."

d Oregon Senate Bill 451: Bill description/summary: "Requires Legislative Assembly to provide funding for statutes created or amended by initiative petition. Provides that if funding measure is referred by people and defeated, Legislative Assembly need not fund initiated measure. Specifies that if funding measure is referred by people and defeated, Legislative Assembly must again provide funding at next regular session following referendum election."

d Oregon Senate Bill 654: Bill description/summary: "Requires the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission to prepare a racial and ethnic impact statement for initiative measures that affect the racial and ethnic composition of the criminal justice offender population or the recipients of human services. Defines “criminal offender population” as those convicted of a felony or adjudicated a delinquent for the commission of what would be a felony if the person were an adult. Defines “recipients of human services” as persons found under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court for a dependency matter or who receive child welfare services. Requires the Secretary of State to have a hearing no later than the 95th day before an election to receive suggested changes to the ethnic impact statement. Applies to elections held after November 2012."

d Oregon Senate Bill 911: Bill description/summary: "Requires Secretary of State to establish Initiative and Referendum Hotline for reports of election law or rule violations. Provides that no person may discriminate or retaliate against person who reports violation. Provides civil cause of action. Becomes operative on January 1, 2012."

d Oregon Senate Bill 913: Bill description/summary: "Requires estimates, portraits, statements and arguments included in voters' pamphlet regarding statewide candidates or measures to be filed electronically with Secretary of State."

d Oregon Senate Bill 914: Bill description/summary: "Creates Citizens' Initiative Review Commission to oversee review of state initiative measures by citizen panels. Directs panels to review state initiative measures and prepare statements to be included in voters' pamphlet. Specifies procedures for appointment of commission, panels and moderators of panels. Sets terms of office."

d Oregon Senate Bill 915: Bill description/summary: "Provides that person who contracts or subcontracts with chief petitioner keep detailed accounts. Specifies that chief petitioners, contractors and subcontractors must submit accounts to Secretary of State for inspection every six months or upon ceasing to obtain more signatures on petition or prospective petition, whichever is sooner. Allows Secretary of State to issue temporary provisional registration for paid petition circulators in certain circumstances. Provides that persons who have served sentence for certain convictions during previous five-year period are ineligible to register as paid petition circulator."

d Oregon Senate Joint Resolution 22: Bill description/summary: "Allows only certain person or entity to prepare ballot title, if required by law, for measure referred to people by Legislative Assembly. Refers proposed amendment to people for their approval or rejection at next regular general election."

d Oregon Senate Joint Resolution 34: Bill description/summary: "Proposes amendment to Oregon Constitution to prohibit appropriation of moneys by initiative measure. Directs Legislative Assembly to raise by taxation or otherwise any moneys necessary to implement initiative laws and amendments to Oregon Constitution approved by people. Refers proposed amendment to people for their approval or rejection at next regular general election."

d Oregon Senate Joint Resolution 35: Bill description/summary: "Proposes amendment to Oregon Constitution to require that initiative petition proposing law or constitutional amendment with fiscal impact include source of revenue to pay for proposed law or amendment. Specifies that proposed source of revenue may not draw from existing revenue. Refers proposed amendment to people for their approval or rejection at next regular general election."

### Pennsylvania[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the Pennsylvania General Assembly:

Pennsylvania House Bill 96

Pennsylvania House Bill 357: HB 357 would instructs the state treasurer to prepare a fiscal note for each ballot questions. The note is to appear on the ballot and notice of elections.

Pennsylvania House Bill 922: Bill description/summary: "An Act amending Title 65 (Public Officers) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, providing for recall election of State and local officers, for recall petition process, for review of recall petitions, for recall election and for prohibited practices."

Pennsylvania House Bill 921: Bill description/summary: "A Joint Resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, providing for recall of elected public officers."

Pennsylvania Senate Bill 337: SB 337 would propose a limited constitutional convention to voters (a binding vote). The convention's authority would be limited to the following areas of the Pennsylvania Constitution: Article II, Sections 3, 4, 8, 16, & 17; Article III, Sections 1-4, 13, 26, & 27; Article IV, Sections 4-6, 8, 13, & 17; Article V, Sections 10, 13, 15, & 16\. The reason given for the convention is that, "The present Constitution should be systematically reconsidered and conformed to the needs of a modern Commonwealth."

Pennsylvania Senate Bill 653: SB 653 (a joint resolution) would propose a constitutional amendment to voters, establishing indirect initiative and veto referendum.

Pennsylvania Senate Bill 249: SB 249 (a joint resolution) would propose a constitutional amendment to voters, establishing direct initiative, indirect initiative, and veto referendum.

SB 608

### Rhode Island[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the Rhode Island General Assembly:

d Rhode Island House Bill 5346: H 5346 would provide a process for applying to petition, choosing ballot language, certifying result, etc. if H 5347 is ratified.

d Rhode Island House Bill 5347: (dead link) H 5347 (a joint resolution) would propose an amendment to the Rhode Island Constitution allowing citizens to initiate state statutes and constitutional amendments.

d Rhode Island House Bill 6084: (dead link) H 6084 would provide a process for selecting arguments for and against a referred measure. These arguments would appear in the voter information mailing.

d Rhode Island Senate Bill 349: (dead link) S 349 would provide a process for selecting arguments for and against a referred measure. These arguments would appear in the voter information mailing.

d Rhode Island Senate Bill 372: (dead link) S 372 (a joint resolution) would propose an amendment to the Rhode Island Constitution allowing citizens to initiate state statutes and constitutional amendments.

d Rhode Island Senate Bill 374: (dead link) S 374 would provide a process for applying to petition, choosing ballot language, certifying result, etc. if S 372 is ratified.

d Rhode Island Senate Bill 796: (dead link) S 796 (a joint resolution) would provide for a bi-partisan preparatory commission if legislators choose to refer a constitutional convention question to voters as described in Section 2, Article XIV of the Rhode Island Constitution.

### South Carolina[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the South Carolina State Legislature:

South Carolina House Bill 3515: Bill description/summary: "To amend the code of laws of South Carolina, 1976, by adding Section 7-13-200 so as to provide for quarterly election dates for conducting referenda or other ballot questions for all entities authorized to conduct them."

South Carolina House Bill 4245: Bill description/summary: "To amend the code of laws of South Carolina, 1976, by adding Chapter 14 to Title 7 so as to provide the procedures, requirements, circumstances, and conditions for the recall of state or local popularly elected public officials, and to provide penalties for certain violations."

South Carolina House Joint Resolution 3008: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of South Carolina, 1895, by adding Section 1b to Article III so as to establish a specified procedure for the enactment or repeal of laws by initiative petition and referendum..."

South Carolina House Joint Resolution 4244: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "Proposing an amendment to Article XV of the Constitution of South Carolina, 1895, by adding Section 4 so as to provide that the General Assembly by law shall provide for the recall of state or local popularly elected public officials upon petition of the qualified electors..."

South Carolina Senate Joint Resolution 181: Bill description/summary: "Proposing an amendment to Article XV of the Constitution of South Carolina, 1895, relating to impeachment of certain executive and judicial officers of this state, by adding Section 4 to provide procedures for recalling and removing from public office persons holding public offices of the state or its political subdivisions in the executive and legislative branches of state or local governments."

South Carolina Senate Joint Resolution 188: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of South Carolina, 1895, by adding Section 4 in Article XVI so as to provide at the general election of 2012 and every twenty-years afterward, the question of whether a constitutional convention be held to revise, amend, or change the constitution of this state must be submitted to the qualified electors of the state to be decided by a majority of the electors voting on the question..."

South Carolina Senate Joint Resolution 544: Bill description/summary: "Proposing an amendment to Article XVII of the Constitution of South Carolina, 1895, by adding Section 15 to permit the enactment of laws and constitutional amendments by initiative petition."

South Carolina Senate Joint Resolution 67: S 67 would create a process for initiated constitutional amendments in South Carolina. The legislation would require the signatures of 10% of the qualified electors in the prior general election. The measure also institutes a distribution requirement requiring 2% of these signatures to come from each of 2/3 of the state's counties. House Joint Resolution 3008 has also proposed a process for initiated amendments, but also adds a process for initiated statutes.[64][65] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating:  Protects/expands initiative rights.

South Carolina Senate Joint Resolution 74: Bill description/summary: "Proposing an amendment to Article XV of the Constitution of South Carolina, 1895, by adding Section 4 so as to provide procedures for recalling and removing from public office persons holding public offices of the state or its political subdivisions in the executive and legislative branches of state or local governments."

South Carolina Senate Joint Resolution 97: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "Proposing an amendment to Article XV of the Constitution of South Carolina, 1895, relating to impeachment of certain executive and judicial officers of this state, by adding Section 4 so as to provide procedures for recalling and removing from public office persons holding public offices of the state or its political subdivisions in the executive and legislative branches of state or local governments..."

### South Dakota[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in South Dakota

The following bills were introduced in the South Dakota State Legislature:

a South Dakota House Bill 1141: Bill description/summary: "An Act to establish a date to begin absentee voting and to revise the deadline for the printing of ballots."

### Tennessee[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the Tennessee General Assembly:

Tennessee House Bill 217: (Senate companion, SB 217) Bill description/summary: "Prohibits use of public funds to support or oppose any charter referendum in Tennessee."[66]

Tennessee House Bill 1884: (Senate companion, SB 1333) Bill description/summary: "Decreases, from 15 percent to 10 percent, the portion of voters who are required to sign a petition for a recall, referendum, or initiative in order for it to be placed on the ballot."[67]

Tennessee Senate Bill 130: (House companion, HB 217) Bill description/summary: "Prohibits use of public funds to support or oppose any charter referendum in Tennessee."[68]

Tennessee Senate Bill 1333: (House companion, HB 1884) Bill description/summary: "Decreases, from 15 percent to 10 percent, the portion of voters who are required to sign a petition for a recall, referendum, or initiative in order for it to be placed on the ballot."[69]

### Texas[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the Texas State Legislature:

a Texas House Bill 360: HB 360 would specify certain details to be included in ballot language for bond measures and measures to impose, increase, or reduce taxes. These details include: the amount and purpose of a bond, the maximum rate for a new tax, and the amount of increase/decrease for a change in tax rates.

d Texas House Joint Resolution 6: Bill description/summary: "A joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to reserve to the people the powers of initiative for the sole purpose of adopting and imposing a state income tax."

### Utah[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Utah

The following bills were introduced in the Utah State Legislature:

a Utah Senate Bill 165 (2011): SB 165 changes the basis of Utah's signature requirements from the number of votes cast in the last gubernatorial election to the number of votes cast in the last presidential election. This will raise the number of signatures required. In addition, the bill bans electronic signatures for ballot initiatives. Citizens in Charge Foundation rating:  Reduces initiative rights.[70]

a Utah Senate Bill 280: Bill description/summary: "This bill modifies the Election Code to establish procedures for submitting a nonbinding opinion question to the voters of Utah."

a Utah Senate Bill 72: Bill description/summary: "This bill: requires an initiative to contain no more than one subject to the same extent a bill may not pass with more than one subject under the Utah Constitution; authorizes initiative petition sponsors to change the text of a proposed law following public hearings; and requires the Governor's Office of Planning and Budget to update an initial fiscal impact estimate if the text of a proposed law is changed."

### Virginia[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the Virginia General Assembly:

a Virginia Senate Bill 889 (2011): SB 889 removes the requirement that voters include the last four digits of their social security number when signing a petition.[71] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating:  Protects/expands initiative rights.

### Washington[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Washington

The following bills were introduced in the Washington State Legislature:

Washington House Bill 1158: HB 1158 would require additional fiscal impact information to be included in levy ballot language.

Washington House Bill 1584: Bill description/summary: "Prohibits signature gatherers for initiative or referendum petitions from being within fifteen feet of entrances and exits of certain stand alone or retail stores, unless authorized by the property owner."

Washington House Bill 1668: Bill description/summary: "Increases the initiative filing fee."

Washington House Bill 1888: Bill description/summary: "Requires the office of financial management, for each voters' pamphlet prepared for the general election, to provide information about how Washington municipal governments, state government, and the federal government receive their income, how they distribute it, and how the tax structure works."

Washington House Bill 1987: Bill description/summary: "Provides sufficient flexibility to county auditors to accept ballots where misspellings are present, yet the registered voter is clearly the same person."

Washington Senate Bill 5216: Bill description/summary: "Provides for the administrative costs involved in the initiative process by increasing the initiative filing fee."

Washington Senate Bill 5297: Bill description/summary: "Regulates signature gathering businesses. Provides that the initiative filing fee will be set by the secretary of state. Requires certain information from signature gatherers and additional information from petitioners on petitions. Authorizes the secretary of state to establish an electronic system for a legal voter to pay a filing fee, file a proposed measure, and provide sufficient information in lieu of an affidavit to establish that he or she is a legal voter in the state."

Washington Senate Bill 5832: Bill description/summary: "Requires the office of financial management, for each voters' pamphlet prepared for the general election, to provide information about how Washington municipal governments, state government, and the federal government receive their income, how they distribute it, and how the tax structure works."

### West Virginia[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the West Virginia State Legislature:

d West Virginia House Bill 2393: Bill description/summary: "Providing that parties advocating passage or defeat of a public question by referendum vote are subject to reporting requirements."

d West Virginia House Bill 2454: Bill description/summary: "Relating to recall elections of elected or appointed federal officers that do not hold a life term." (Provides for recall in West Virginia)

d West Virginia House Bill 2737: Bill description/summary: "Providing a procedure for removal of county, district or municipal officers."

d West Virginia Joint Resolution 27: Excerpt from bill desscription/summary: "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of West Virginia...relating to the... reservation by and to the people and registered voters of this state the powers of initiative, referendum, and recall at all levels of government in this state; numbering and designating such proposed amendment; and providing a summarized statement of the purpose of such proposed amendment."

d West Virginia Senate Resolution 7: Excerpt from bill desscription/summary: "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of West Virginia... relating to the...reservation by and to the people and registered voters of this state the powers of initiative, referendum and recall at all levels of government in this state; numbering and designating such proposed amendment; and providing a summarized statement of the purpose of such proposed amendment."

### Wisconsin[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the Wisconsin State Legislature:

Wisconsin Assembly Joint Resolution 63

Wisconsin Assembly Bill 296

SB 268

SB 270

SB 334

## See also[edit]

* 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

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ NCSL, "Initiative & Referendum Database," accessed November 30, 2011
2. ↑ Alabama State Legislature, HB337 as Introduced, "Synopsis," accessed July 11, 2011
3. ↑ Alaska State Legislature, Alaska House Bill 74, Bill Information
4. ↑ Ballot Access News, "Arizona Bill, Improving Ballot Access and Making Other Changes, Passes House Judiciary Committee," February 10, 2011
5. ↑ California State Legislature, AB 1021 as Amended, "Legislative Counsel’s Digest," accessed July 11, 2011
6. ↑ California Assembly Bill 481, as amended
7. ↑ California Assembly Bill 481, Bill History (dead link)
8. ↑ California State Legislature, AB 732 as Amended, "Legislative Counsel’s Digest," accessed July 11, 2011
9. ↑ California State Legislature, ACA 5 as Amended, "Legislative Counsel’s Digest," accessed July 11, 2011
10. ↑ California State Legislature, ACA 9 as Amended, "Legislative Counsel’s Digest," accessed July 11, 2011
11. ↑ California State Legislature, ACA 7 as introduced, "Legislative Counsel’s Digest," accessed July 11, 2011
12. ↑ California State Legislature, ACA 9 as Amended, "Legislative Counsel’s Digest," accessed July 11, 2011
13. ↑ California State Legislature, ACA 10 as Amended, "Legislative Counsel’s Digest," accessed July 11, 2011
14. ↑ California State Legislature, ACA 11 as Amended, "Legislative Counsel’s Digest," accessed July 11, 2011
15. ↑ California State Legislature, ACA 12 as Amended, "Legislative Counsel’s Digest," accessed July 11, 2011
16. ↑ Sacramento Bee, "Legislators push to alter Capitol's business-as-usual," December 20, 2010 (dead link)
17. ↑ California State Legislature, ACA 19 as Amended, "Legislative Counsel’s Digest," accessed July 11, 2011
18. ↑ Senate Bill 168, Bill information (dead link)
19. ↑ California State Legislature, AB 732 as Amended, "Legislative Counsel’s Digest," accessed July 11, 2011
20. ↑ California Assembly Bill 448, Bill History (dead link)
21. ↑ California Assembly Bill 481, Bill History (dead link)
22. ↑ California State Legislature, SCA 4 as Introduced, "Legislative Counsel’s Digest," accessed July 11, 2011
23. ↑ California State Legislature, SCA 5 as Amended, "Legislative Counsel’s Digest," accessed July 11, 2011
24. ↑ Colorado House Bill 11-1072, enrolled bill
25. ↑ Denverpost.com, "Bipartisan coalition proposes making it harder to change state constitution," February 9, 2011
26. ↑ Florida House Joint Resolution 1259, bill information, accessed July 12, 2011
27. ↑ Florida House Bill 1261, bill information, accessed July 12, 2011
28. ↑ Tampa Bay Online, "State law limits citizens' ability to get amendments on ballot," May 24, 2011
29. ↑ Florida Senate, SB 1504, Committee Substitute 1
30. ↑ Ballot Access News, "Florida Bill to Prevent Out-of-State Circulators Advances," March 22, 2011
31. ↑ Florida Senate Bill 2086, bill information, accessed July 12, 2011
32. ↑ Florida Senate Bill 7220, bill information, accessed July 12, 2011
33. ↑ Hawaii House Bill 140, Bill information, accessed July 12, 2011
34. ↑ Hawaii House Bill 195, Bill information, accessed July 12, 2011
35. ↑ Hawaii House Bill 540, Bill information, accessed July 12, 2011
36. ↑ Hawaii House Bill 542, Bill information, accessed July 12, 2011
37. ↑ Hawaii Senate Bill 1195, Bill information, accessed July 12, 2011
38. ↑ Hawaii Senate Minority, "Senate Minority Package Bills Announced," January 26, 2011
39. ↑ Hawaii Senate Bill 7, Bill information, accessed July 12, 2011
40. ↑ Hawaii Senate Bill 76, Bill information, accessed July 12, 2011
41. ↑ Hawaii Senate Bill 949, Bill information, accessed July 12, 2011
42. ↑ Hawaii Senate Bill 950, Bill information, accessed July 12, 2011
43. ↑ Illinois House Bill 1854, Bill information, accessed July 12, 2011
44. ↑ Illinois House Bill 3438, Bill information, accessed July 12, 2011
45. ↑ Bill Information, HB0097
46. ↑ Text of LD 1528, "Summary," accessed July 25, 2011
47. ↑ Citizens in Charge, "Petition Blocking: Should We Let Democracy Get Tackled?" February 4, 2011
48. ↑ Ballot Access News, "Massachusetts Bill, More Than Doubling Number of Signatures for Initiatives, Has Hearing March 23," March 16, 2011
49. ↑ The Massachusetts Daily Collegian, "Rosenberg leads drive to modify ballot initiative process," February 24, 2011
50. ↑ Ballot Access News, "Massachusetts Bills to Restrict Petition Circulators," February 23, 2011
51. ↑ Massachusetts House Bill 529, Bill Text
52. ↑ Massachusetts House Bill 529, Bill History
53. ↑ St. Louis Beacon, "Legislators propose tightening process for ballot initiatives," February 23, 2011
54. ↑ Bill History, HB 391
55. ↑ Billings Gazette, "Missoula County attorney's attempt to override marijuana initiative creates uproar," January 20, 2011
56. ↑ CICF, "Afternoon I&R Legislation Update," April 19, 2011
57. ↑ This information is based on the May 4, 2011 edition of a weekly email sent out by CICF called the "Afternoon I&R Legislation Update"
58. ↑ Oklahoma House Bill 1718, Bill Text, As introduced, accessed September 16, 2011
59. ↑ Ballot Access News, "Oklahoma Senate Passes Distribution Requirement for Initiative Petitions," March 4, 2011
60. ↑ HB 2257, Staff Measure Summary, June 15, 2011
61. ↑ Oregon Business, "Bills target initiatives, campaign finance," February 11, 2011
62. ↑ HB 2634, Staff Measure Summary, March 22, 2011
63. ↑ Oregon House Bill 2776, as introduced
64. ↑ South Carolina Senate Joint Resolution 67, bill text
65. ↑ South Carolina House Joint Resolution 3008, bill text
66. ↑ Tennessee General Assembly Fiscal Review Committee," Fiscal Note, HB 217, February 7, 2011
67. ↑ Tennessee General Assembly Fiscal Review Committee," Fiscal Note, HB 1884, March 24, 2011
68. ↑ Tennessee General Assembly Fiscal Review Committee," Fiscal Note, SB 130, February 7, 2011
69. ↑ Tennessee General Assembly Fiscal Review Committee," Fiscal Note, SB 1333, March 24, 2011
70. ↑ Utah Senate Bill 165, as enrolled
71. ↑ Senate Bill 889, Bill Information

Laws governing ballot measures in the United States

Laws governing ballot measures

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Changes to laws governing ballot measures

2026 • 2025 • 2024 • 2023 • 2022 • 2021 • 2020 • 2019 • 2018

Types of ballot measures

Citizen-initiated ballot measures • Legislatively referred ballot measures • Automatically referred ballot measures • Commission-referred ballot measures • Convention-referred constitutional amendments

Ballot measure policy terms

Glossary of ballot measure policy terms