Ballotpedia s 2015 local ballot measure recap

### December 18, 2015[edit]

By: Josh Altic

In no aspect of U.S. politics does an individual vote have more of a direct impact than in local ballot measures. In 2015, residents decided key issues for their communities directly through casting votes on local issues such as housing, LGBT issues, minimum wage, marijuana, fracking, development and more.

This year, the measures that failed to reach the ballot or faced post-election challenges told an important story as well. As citizens and local legislators use local measures to enact controversial policies that belong to certain national and statewide agendas, opponents of those policies are expanding their arsenal to include an important weapon: state law coupled with the concepts of preemption, hierarchy and jurisdiction. In 2015, seven anti-fracking measures were blocked from the ballot in Ohio, and one anti-fracking initiative in Texas was rescinded because of state legislation. Moreover, state lawmakers in several states passed laws designed to give the state government exclusive control over important issues, including anti-discrimination laws protecting gays, lesbians and transgenders; fracking and regulation of the oil and gas industry; and minimum wage increases. Marijuana legalization and decriminalization are other issues over which certain states and the federal government have been loath to give up power. Many of these "David and Goliath" power struggles will be decided in the courts in 2016. Details and more information can be found below.

### Big-money campaigns[edit]

The two most notable measures of 2015 were decided in San Francisco, California, and Houston, Texas, and were easy to spot even in national news since they featured support and opposition campaign spending that far surpassed that of any other local measure in 2015. In San Francisco, where rent costs were second only to those in New York last year, the November election was focused heavily on the issue of housing, and Proposition F, the "Airbnb Initiative," was the most debated and well-known measure on the city's ballot. The measure was designed to restrict short-term rentals in order to ensure available units remained in the long-term housing market. This measure was prominent in large part because of the amount of money proponents and opponents—but especially opponents—spent on campaigns. The campaign funds came from predictable sources; Airbnb, the six-year-old international startup now worth about $20 billion, provided about $8 million to defeat the measure, which would have severely curtailed its operation in San Francisco. Hotel industry unions, which compete with private short-term renters, were responsible for the majority of the $778,488 contributed to the support campaign.

| Campaign cash: San Francisco Prop F
as of October 17, 2015

Support: | $778,488
Opposition: | $8,377,784

| Campaign cash: Houston HERO
as of December 4, 2015

Support: | $1,918,552
Opposition: | $398,472

Donations to the second most expensive local ballot battle in 2015 were more ideologically and less financially motivated. A group of Christian pastors launched the veto referendum petition drive to put Houston's HERO ordinance—which was designed to protect gays, lesbians and transgenders from discrimination—before voters and helped raise money to oppose it once it reached the ballot. They raised close to $400,000 and successfully ran a campaign that focused on men abusing the anti-discrimination provisions to gain access to women's bathrooms, showers and locker rooms. The opposition raised almost $2 million to spread its arguments of equal rights and to argue that crimes against women had not increased in the many other cities that had enacted similar laws. Ultimately, HERO proponents were not able to win the favor of the voters despite their larger war chest.

### LGBT issues[edit]

Voters in Springfield, Missouri, voted against enacting an anti-discrimination proposal to protect members of the LGBT community on April 7, 2015, after Question 1, the veto referendum targeting a city council ordinance, was put on the ballot through a signature petition drive backed by Christians Uniting for Political Action (CUPA).

In the second half of the year, voters in Fayetteville, Arkansas, approved an anti-discrimination ordinance. Fayetteville electors rejected a similar ordinance with harsher penalties for violations and fewer exemptions in December 2014. Before the measure was approved, opponents filed a lawsuit against it, arguing that it violated state law and freedom of religion.

### Minimum wage[edit]

Two cities decided minimum wage measures in 2015. Voters in Portland, Maine, defeated Question 1, which was designed to increase the city's minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2017. A little over 58 percent of voters rejected the wage increase. In Tacoma, Washington, voters approved the lesser of two proposed minimum wages. Following its success in Seattle and SeaTac, 15 Now collected signatures to put a $15 per hour minimum wage initiative on the ballot in Tacoma. The city council responded by drafting an alternative measure designed to raise the city's minimum wage to $12 per hour. On November 3, 2015, voters were given two questions. The first asked if they wanted an increase to the minimum wage or not. Nearly 59 percent of voters said "yes" to a minimum wage increase. The second question asked all voters, even those who voted "no" on the first question, whether they were in favor of the $15 per hour minimum wage initiative or the city council's $12 per hour alternative. The more modest increase was selected by over 71 percent of voters. Voters in eight states could see measures seeking higher minimum wages in 2016.

### Marijuana[edit]

Marijuana legalization has been a hot-button issue for the last several years, and the issue is becoming a mainstream part of the nation's political discussion. Forty-eight separate marijuana-related statewide ballot measures across 19 states were proposed for 2016, although many won't reach the ballot. Ballotpedia tracked 10 local measures concerning marijuana sales and use in 2015. Six of the 10 measures received pro-marijuana votes, while four were decided in favor of harsher restrictions or continued prohibition.

The five most extreme measures sought outright legalization or decriminalization. Four out of the five were approved. In Toledo, the fourth largest city in Ohio, over 70 percent of voters backed Issue 1, a proposal to decriminalize marijuana according to city law. Issue 1 was designed to decrease the penalties of marijuana use to the absolute minimum while keeping the substance technically illegal in order to comply with state law. Despite the decisive approval of this local measure in September, state voters rejected Issue 3, which sought marijuana legalization on a statewide level. Opponents of Issue 3 alleged that certain provisions would establish a harmful monopoly, and contention surrounding this point muddied the water with regard to the voters' position on marijuana legalization. It remained unclear whether a future marijuana legalization measure would be approved. In April 2015, voters in Wichita, Kansas, which is the largest city in the state and contains 13 percent of the entire Kansas population, approved a local marijuana decriminalization initiative by a 54-46 margin, making possession of small amounts of marijuana punishable by a $50 fine and eliminating all jail time for first-time violations. Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt took up arms against this measure, both before it was approved in an effort to keep it from the ballot and after approval when he filed a lawsuit against it in the Kansas Supreme Court. Schmidt argued that the local decriminalization issue violated state law, which prescribes up to a year of incarceration and $2,500 in fines for marijuana possession.

|

Safer Michigan Coalition banner

The other three measures were part of the Safer Michigan Coalition's effort to pass enough local decriminalization initiatives to force the issue on the state legislature. Measures in East Lansing and Portage were approved in May 2015 and November 2015, respectively. Montrose voters rejected their decriminalization proposal. A legalization initiative may appear on Michigan's statewide ballot in 2016.

As statewide legalization takes effect in several states, opponents of the drug have turned to city and county initiatives to restrict cannabis through local direct democracy. Opponents of marijuana legalization in Alaska gathered signatures for initiatives seeking local prohibitions in the cities of Houston, Palmer, Wasilla and Matanuska-Susitna Borough. They succeeded in putting measures on the ballot in Houston and Palmer. Houston voters rejected Proposition No. H-1, opting to keep recreational marijuana legal. Voters in Palmer approved the initiative.

In the city of Brownsville, voters rejected the idea of allowing the operation of licensed medical and recreational marijuana facilities within city limits through voting "no" on Measure 22-134, a non-binding advisory question.

Electors in two California cities rejected measures seeking to overturn medical marijuana prohibitions and to allow the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries:

d Town of Yucca Valley Medical Marijuana Dispensary Authorization and Regulation Act, Measure X (June 2015)
d City of Riverside Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Initiative, Measure A (June 2015)

### Fracking[edit]

Voters in Youngstown, Ohio, rejected a "Community Bill of Rights" fracking ban initiative for the fifth time. The margin of defeat was narrow enough to prompt proponents to pay for a recount, which showed "no" votes ahead of "yes" votes by 2.5 percent.

Implying the possibility of a sixth attempt, Ray Beiersdorfer, a backer of the initiative, said that the margin of defeat for the proposal had become narrower at each election, except for the initiative that was defeated by a margin of over 15 percent in November 2014. Beiersdorfer said, “Over time, more and more people are getting educated.”[1]

## Failure paints a bigger picture: State vs. local[edit]

### Fracking[edit]

The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, a national organization with the stated goals of enhancing community rights and environmental protections, provided support for seven "community bill of rights" initiatives. Only one, however, made it to the ballot. Five proposed county initiative charters were rejected by Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted (R), who argued that the anti-fracking charters were preempted by state law and that the state had exclusive authority over the oil and gas industry in the state. Husted also pointed out that the proposed charters did not alter the form of county government, as a proposed charter is required to do by the Ohio Constitution. Initiative proponents went all the way to the Ohio Supreme Court seeking to overrule Husted's decision. Ultimately, the court invalidated the proposed initiatives based on the more technical "alternative form of government" argument. The court did not decide on the validity of the initiatives' content or on whether or not local governments could regulate the oil and gas industry. This issue will likely appear in the courts again in future years.

In Texas, state legislators decided to make their authority over drilling and fracking explicit after Denton voters approved a local anti-fracking citizen initiative in November 2014. The Texas State Legislature passed House Bill 40 early in 2015, and Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed it into law on May 18, 2015. Proponents said the issue belonged at the level of a statewide discussion. Opponents said the oil and gas industry bought HB 40 through lobbying and political contributions in order to prevent citizens from using direct democracy to enact fracking restrictions in Denton, which was home to over 270 natural gas wells in 2014, as well as other Texas cities and counties. Soon after HB 40 was enacted, the Denton City Council rescinded the anti-fracking citizen initiative to avoid lawsuits based on the new state law. The Oklahoma State Legislature passed a similar bill, Oklahoma Senate Bill 809, 33-13 in the Oklahoma State Senate and 64-32 in the Oklahoma House of Representatives. Only one Democrat in the entire state legislature voted "yes" on SB 809.[2]

### Wages[edit]

Minimum wage increases were decided by local voters in Washington and Maine in 2015. The issue was also headed for the ballot in Kansas City, Missouri, before the state government stepped in and claimed exclusive authority over minimum wage legislation. Labor advocates and business advocates were lining up on either side of what looked to be a heated battle over two ballot items: a $15 per hour minimum wage initiative and a veto referendum targeting a more modest minimum wage increase enacted by the city council earlier in July 2015. But campaigns on either side became moot when the Missouri State Legislature passed House Bill 722, prohibiting local government entities from raising the minimum wage above the state-set minimum. Gov. Jay Nixon (D) vetoed the bill, but the legislature overrode the veto. Kansas City Attorney Bill Geary stepped in and asked the court to keep both ballot questions from going before voters. HB 722 also forbade cities from imposing taxes, fees or bans on paper or plastic bags.[3][4]

### LGBT issues[edit]

Arkansas lawmakers approved Senate Bill 202 this year. The law was designed to prohibit local laws creating a protected class or prohibiting discrimination based on characteristics not recognized by state law. The key issue at stake was the validity of local ordinances protecting lesbian, gay and transgender individuals from discrimination.

As of December 2015, it was known that the following local government entities had enacted laws protecting against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity:

* Little Rock
* North Little Rock
* Pulaski County
* Conway
* Marvell
* Eureka Springs
* Hot Springs
* Fayetteville

The sponsor of SB 202, as well as other supporters, said the bill made any previously approved LGBT anti-discrimination ordinances void. But the legal counsel for several cities with such ordinances argued that the bill had no effect on local LGBT-related ordinances. Little Rock City Attorney Tom Carpenter said, “They’re not in conflict. There’s nothing mentioned in the city’s ordinance that’s not already protected under state law.” Carpenter claimed that, although the state's civil rights law does not mention sexual orientation or gender identity, the state does have some anti-bullying laws, homeless shelter laws and other laws that explicitly recognize and protect members of the LGBT community. Other city attorneys agreed with Carpenter's interpretation.[5]

Sen. Hester, the sponsor of SB 202, disagreed, saying, “I think their ordinances are null and void. I think that’s very clear.” A court battle will probably follow to decide the issue in 2016 or later years.[5]

SB 202 is already being used in a lawsuit surrounding a local measure. In Fayetteville, the most recent Arkansas city to enact an LGBT protections ordinance, opponents of a measure approved by voters on September 8, 2015, filed a lawsuit in part based on SB 202 arguing that the city ordinance violated state law and rights to freedom of religion.[6]

## See also[edit]

* Local ballot measure elections in 2015
* Every vote counts: close local measure races on November 3

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ Bakken.com, "Hand recount confirms defeat of anti-fracking charter amendment," December 2, 2015
2. ↑ Open States, "Oklahoma Senate Bill 809 (2015)," accessed December 11, 2015
3. ↑ Open States, "Missouri House Bill 722 (2015)," accessed September 14, 2015
4. ↑ KMBZ, "Kansas City to scrap minimum wage," September 17, 2015
5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Arkansas News, "New law seeks to bar anti-discrimination ordinances, but interpretations vary," July 22, 2015
6. ↑ Arkansas Online, "Fayetteville group seeks injunction in vote on civil-rights ordinance," August 31, 2015

v • e

Local ballot measures

By state|

A • Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • C • California • Colorado • Connecticut • D • Delaware • F • Florida • G • Georgia • H • Hawaii • I • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • K • Kansas • Kentucky • L • Louisiana • M • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • N • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • O • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • P • Pennsylvania • R • Rhode Island • S • South Carolina • South Dakota • T • Tennessee • Texas • U • Utah • V • Vermont • Virginia • W • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

* * *

By year|

2023 • 2022 • 2021 • 2020 • 2019 • 2018 • 2017 • 2016 • 2015 • 2014 • 2013 • 2012 • 2011 • 2010 • 2009 • 2008 • 2007 • 2006 • 2005 • 2004 • 2002

* * *

By topic|

Race and ethnicity • Fracking • Law enforcement • Marijuana • Minimum wage • Public pensions • LGBT issues • Development • Law enforcement • More

* * *

The big picture|

Using local measures to advance national agendas • Power struggle between state and local government