Changes in 2010 to laws governing ballot measures

This Ballotpedia article needs to be updated.
This Ballotpedia article is currently under review by Ballotpedia staff as it may contain out-of-date information. Please email us if you would like to suggest an update.

---

Laws governing ballot measures
State
• Laws governing state initiative processes
• Laws governing state recall processes
• Changes to ballot measure law in 2024
• Difficulty analysis of changes to laws governing ballot measures
• Analysis of 2024 changes to laws governing ballot measures
Local
• Laws governing local ballot measures
Learn about Ballotpedia's election legislation tracker.
2024 » « 2023

In 2010, 258 laws were introduced in 40 states to change state rules and procedures governing:

• Campaign finance requirements for initiative, referendum, and recall campaigns.
• How state constitutions are amended.
• Signature collection on petitions for candidates, political parties, recall campaigns, and ballot initiatives.
• Other laws that affect key areas related to direct democracy.

Of the 258 laws that were introduced, 22 were ultimately enacted into law, in 11 states. State legislatures approved 27 laws, but four of the approved laws were vetoed by the state's governor and one law was placed on a statewide ballot, where it was rejected by voters.

Legend:[edit]

= Carried forward to next year.
a = This legislation was approved.
d = This legislation was defeated.

Laws approved in 2010[edit]

In 2010, the following I&R laws were approved:

States with I&R[edit]

Alaska[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Alaska

The following bills were introduced in the Alaska Legislature:

aAlaska House Bill 36 (2010): House Bill 36 is a proposal that changed campaign finance and other technical requirements of Alaska's initiative and referendum laws. The changes to the campaign finance provisions include mandatory registration and reporting for individuals and groups who plan to contribute $500 or more to support or oppose a ballot measure. Also, the bill would change how a person or a group is defined under state campaign finance law. The bill would also require a single subject rule on all ballot questions. A printed voter information guide would be required under the bill. The guide must disclose all proposed initiatives along with a list of public hearings under the direction of the Lieutenant Governor^[1].

Arizona[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Arizona

The following bills were introduced in the Arizona Legislature:

a Arizona House Bill 2427 (2010): House Bill 2427 would change Arizona's laws on absentee and military voting to give people more flexibility on how they receive their absentee ballot voting materials. The bill was unanimously approved by the Arizona House of Representatives on February 2, 2010, and was approved by the Arizona State Senate on February 4, 2010 by a 24-0 vote^[2]. Governor Jan Brewer signed the bill into law on February 11, 2010^[3].

a Arizona House Bill 2647 (2010): House Bill 2647 would allow for Political Action Committees (PAC's) to submit ballot initiatives to be qualified upon approval of Legislative Council. Also, the bill would grant immunity to PAC's for reporting to authorities any individual who commit signature fraud^[4]. Members of the Arizona House approved the bill by a 55-1 vote on March 17, 2010. The Senate later approved the bill on April 27, 2010, by a 29-0 vote^[5]. The bill was signed into law by the Governor of Arizona on April 13, 2010^[5].

a Arizona Senate Bill 1393 (2010): Senate Bill 1393 modified the way election records can/must be stored. In addition, the bill mandated that groups advocating for or against ballot measures must file an amended statement of organization if the organization's name, the serial number of the petition, or the organization's statement of support or opposition is modified. It also exempted individual contributions to independent expenditure committees from the $5,610 yearly contribution limit. The bill also allowed contributors to donate more than $5,610 to political committees promoting the election or defeat of a state or local candidate. The bill also changed records keeping rules as regarding donations. Concerning the initiative process, the bill instructed the Secretary of State to exclude from counting any sheets circulated by someone ineligible to do so and any signature where the accompanying information was printed by the circulator. The bill also forbids the Secretary of State from refusing an election filing and changes registration requirements for lobbyists.^[6]

a Arizona Senate Bill 1422 (2010): Senate Bill 1422 allows those signing nominating petitions to use a PO box as their address.^[6]

d HB 2438-House Bill 2438 would change how initiatives are numbered on the official ballot in Arizona. The bill calls for all initiatives to be numbered starting after last number used in the previous election. The numbering requirement goes up to number 100^[7]. The bill died in committee without seeing a vote in either house of the Legislature^[8].

d HB 2730-House Bill 2730 would give county recorders more resources to determine the validity of a petition signer who has a Post Office box address^[9]. The bill was defeated in committee without seeing a vote in either house of the legislature^[10].

d HCR 2018: House Concurrent Resolution 2018 was a proposal to amend the Arizona Constitution to require that petitions be submitted to the Secretary of State at least 6 months prior to the election. The vote in the Arizona State Legislature to refer HCB 2018 to the November 2, 2010 ballot was successful, but the state's voters rejected the measure, leading to its ultimate defeat.^[6]

d HCR 2039: House Concurrent Resolution 2039 sought to amend the Arizona Constitution to modify the way funding sources provided in initiatives may be used by the state. It was not placed on the ballot.^[6]

d HCR 2041: House Concurrent Resolution 2041 sought to amend the Arizona Constitution to require legislative reauthorization of state ballot measures after 8 years if those measures require state expenditures. The bill would have applied retroactively to past ballot measure, but was not placed on the ballot.^[6]

d HCR 2055: House Concurrent Resolution 2055 sought to amend the Arizona Constitution to subject ballot initiatives, without an identified source of funding, to legislative appropriation. It was not placed on the ballot.^[6]

d HCR 2063: House Concurrent Resolution 2063 sought to amend the Arizona Constitution to require voters to reauthorize state ballot measures every 10 years if those measures require state expenditures. The bill would have applied retroactively to past ballot measure, but was not placed on the ballot.^[6]

d SB 1068-Senate Bill 1068 would have changed how and when election materials are sent to absentee voters. It would also have changed the deadline for ballot arguments from 53 to 48 days before the election. The billed failed to pass.^[6]

d SB 1267-Senate Bill 1267 would have changed the way ballot measures, referenda and amendments are assigned numbers.^[6]

California[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in California

The following bills were introduced in the California Legislature:

a California Assembly Bill 2101 (2010): AB 2101 would prohibit any person convicted of an elections fraud offense from accepting employment as a paid voter registration deputy or petition circulator. The proposal passed the California Assembly on May 6, 2010 by an unanimous 74-0 vote^[11]. The bill advanced out of Senate Committee on June 15, 2010^[12][13]. The Senate approved the bill by an unanimous 34-0 vote on August 9, 2010, with amendments made to the bill. The Assembly approved the Senate version of the bill on August 12, 2010, by a 78-0 vote, and awaits the Governor's signature^[14].

a California Assembly Bill 1717 (2010): AB 1717 would allow voters to opt out by mail from receiving the official voter information guide that publishes ballot measures. The bill was approved by the California Assembly on April 12, 2010, by a 71-0 vote, and awaits action in the California Senate^[15]. The bill was approved by the California Senate on June 24, 2010 by a 31-0 vote^[16]. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the bill into law on July 6, 2010^[17].

d AB 6, sponsored by Lori Saldana. AB 6 would have required petition drive management companies to register each year with the government. The bill was approved by the California Assembly on May 28, 2009, by a 49-28 vote^[18]. The bill was later approved by the Senate on a 21-15 vote on August 31, 2009^[19]. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill on October 11, 2009^[20].

d AB 10: Would prohibit petition circulators from engaging in political activity on public property. The bill died in Legislative committee on January 31, 2009^[21].

d AB 319, sponsored by Roger Niello, would have the California Legislative Analyst's Office prepare the ballot title and ballot summary for ballot propositions, rather than the California Attorney General. The bill died in Legislative committee on January 31, 2009^[22].

d AB 436, proposed by Lori Saldana, would raise the state's initiative filing fee over a six-year period from $200 to $2,000^[23]. AB 436 was approved by the California Assembly on a 47-28 vote on May 28, 2009^[24]. The bill was approved by the California Senate on September 9, 2009 by a 21-18 vote^[25]. The bill was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on October 11, 2009^[26].

d AB 1278: Would require to California Legislative Analyst's Office to disclose more information on fiscal impact statements and expand the requirement for an impact statement to any measure involving state bonding.

d AB 1832: Would incrementally increase the filing fees for initiative petitions in California from $200 to $2,000 from 2011 to 2017. The bill was approved by the California Assembly on April 5, 2010, by a vote of 48-29^[27]. The bill advanced out of Senate committee on June 15, 2010, and was approved by the Senate on August 21, 2010 by a 21-15 vote^[28][23]. The bill awaits the Governor's signature^[23].

d AB 1968: Would require the California Legislative Analyst's Office and not the California Attorney General to prepare the ballot title and summary to any qualified ballot measure. The bill was defeated in committee on a final reconsideration vote on May 19, 2010^[29].

d AB 2088: Would eliminate signature verification for recall petitions with less than 500 signatures and allows temporary appointments for vacant positions in the event of a failed recall effort for the balance of the unserved term. The bill passed the Assembly on May 13, 2010 by an unanimous 76-0 vote^[30]. The bill was approved by the Senate on August 26, 2010 by a 37-0 vote^[31]. The bill awaits the Governor's signature.

d ACA 3: Would allow voters to have the right to approve or deny bond measures over $1 million using state bonds. The amendment advanced out of Assembly committee on August 27, 2009, and is scheduled for a floor vote when the Legislature returns from summer recess^[32][33].

d ACA 5: Would require any ballot measure using state bonding to be approved on a 55% super-majority. The amendment advanced out of Assembly committee on August 27, 2009, and is scheduled for a floor vote when the Legislature returns from summer recess^[34][35].

d ACA 13: Would change requirements for indirect initiatives. The proposed measure would give the California Legislature more authority to approve indirect initiatives and increase signature requirements for initiatives not approved by the Legislature. The amendment passed the Assembly on June 1, 2010, by a 48-27 vote and is scheduled for a vote in the Senate when the Legislature returns from summer recess^[36][37].

d ACA 14: Would limit the number of initiatives placed on the ballot to 5 per an election cycle.

d ACA 20: Would require the California Legislative Analyst's Office to write the ballot title and summary instead of the Attorney General.

d ACA 21: Would have required citizen-initiated constitutional amendments to earn a 2/3rds super-majority from the voters in order to ratify the amendment. The amendment was approved in Assembly committee on August 27, 2009, and is scheduled for a floor vote when the Legislature returns from summer recess^[38].

d ACA 1: Would allow a measure on the November 2010 ballot to approve a constitutional convention.

d ACR 84: Would create a Constitutional Convention commission to revise the current process for adopting a constitutional convention.

d SB 754: Would change the official title and summary written by the Attorney General to 100 words for ballot measures.

d SB 795: Would make it a crime for petition circulators failing to disclose the official title and summary from the Attorney General when accepting signatures for initiative petitions.

d SB 915: Would require filing fees of unqualified ballot measures to be deposited in the state's general fund.

d SB 1202, proposed by Mark DeSaulnier, would require that the California Voter Guide list the five top contributors to each ballot measure, and the amount of their contributions, as of 110 days before the day of the election. (Donations received by ballot proposition campaign committees in the last 110 days of a campaign would not be listed in the pamphlet.)^[39]. The bill was approved by the California Senate on June 2, 2010 by a 21-14 vote^[40]. An Assembly committee advanced the bill to a floor vote on August 4, 2010, and the full Assembly approved the bill on August 19, 2010, by a 52-26 vote^[41][42]. The bill was returned back to the Senate and the Senate approved the final amendments on August 25, 2010 on a 21-11 vote^[42]. The bill awaits the Governor's signature.

d SB 1203, proposed by Mark DeSaulnier, requires paid initiative circulators to wear a badge. The badge must say in 30-point font, “Paid Signature Gatherer”. The badge must also say the name of the county in California in which the petitioner is registered to vote, and if the circulator is not registered, it must say, “Not Registered to Vote.”^[43]. The bill passed the California Senate on May 28, 2010, by a 22-5 vote^[44]. The bill was originally placed on inactive status by the request of Representative Charles Calderon on June 28, 2010^[45]. The bill was moved from inactive status to being scheduled for a possible floor vote in the Assembly on August 19, 2010^[46].

d SCA 10: A senate version of ACA 13 that would change the requirements for indirect initiatives in California. The amendment was approved in Senate Committee on August 27, 2009, and awaits a floor vote when the Legislature returns from Summer recess^[47][48].

d SCA 14: Would ban ballot initiatives that result in a net increase in spending determined by the California Legislative Analyst's Office. The amendment was approved in Senate Committee on August 27, 2009, and awaits a floor vote when the Legislature returns from Summer recess^[49][50].

d SCA 16: A constitutional amendment switching requirements for indirect initiatives. The amendment allows legislators to switch, approve, or deny citizen initiated constitutional amendments and statutes. The amendment was approved in Senate Committee on August 27, 2009, and awaits a floor vote when the Legislature returns from Summer recess^[51][52].

d SCA 19: Would require a mandatory 15 year sunset period for ballot measures having a adverse impact on the state's general fund or special segregated funds.

d SCR 3: Would authorize a constitutional convention in California on the November 2010 ballot.

Colorado[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Colorado

The following bills were introduced in the Colorado General Assembly:

a Colorado Senate Bill 216 (2010): SB 216 would re-order how initiatives are placed on the ballot, putting legislatively referred initiatives first before citizen initiated measures.^[53] The bill passed the Colorado State Senate on May 7, 2010 by a 22-13 vote^[54]. The Colorado House of Representatives passed the bill on May 11, 2010 by a 42-23 vote^[55]. The bill was signed into law on June 10, 2010^[56].

a Colorado House Bill 1370 (2010): HB 1370 is a 2010 Colorado law which modifies Colorado's initiative laws. The bill requires the Secretary of State to inform approved petitioners about issue committee requirements (issue committees must be registered if 200+ petition sections are accepted or printed as part of circulation). The law additionally requires that those providing input on for/against arguments must provide identifying information. The law also clarifies, by a conforming amendment, the term "major purpose" as it relates to campaign finance provisions in the Colorado Constitution. In addition, the law requires that campaign ads/materials costing more than $1,000 must include a disclaimer with the name of the committee financing the material. The law also defines monetary penalties for willfully failing to file campaign finance reports in a timely manner.^[6]

The bill was approved by the Colorado House of Representatives on April 22, 2010, on a 51-10 vote with 4 Representatives not voting^[57]. The Colorado State Senate approved the bill on May 10, 2010 on a 25-10 vote^[58]. The bill was signed into law by Governor of Colorado Bill Ritter on May 25, 2010^[59].

d SCR 3: This law would add a distribution requirement to the petition process for initiated constitutional amendments in Colorado, which currently does not have one. Specifically, it would:

• Require that 5% of the minimum total number of signatures on petitions must be gathered from residents in each of Colorado's U.S. Congressional districts.
• Require a 60% supermajority vote to pass an initiated constitutional amendment, with the exception that it would only take a simple majority vote to repeal provisions of the Colorado Constitution in existence prior to the 2011 odd-year election or to certain amendments related to Amendment 61 (2010). The resolution was defeated by the Colorado State Senate on May 11, 2010 on a 20-13 vote with 2 Senators not voting^[60].

d HB 1366: This law would make it illegal for a person who is on parole or probation for offenses involving unlawful sexual behavior or felony fraud to act as a petition circulator. The bill was approved by the Colorado House of Representatives on a unanimous 64-0 vote on May 4, 2010^[61]. The bill died in Senate Committee^[62].

d HB 1423: This law would eliminate the state's current residency requirement and change the wording of the affidavit portion of Colorado initiative petitions to reflect that the residency of the circulator is not required. The bill died in the General Assembly without a vote in either house of the Legislature^[63].

d HB 1047: This would establish a uniform style for statewide ballot titles. Changes would include:

• Removing the requirement that the rules of the Colorado General Assembly concerning the single-subject rule for its legislation be followed when setting ballot titles.
• Replacing the phrase "and, in connection therewith," with the word "that:;"
• Presenting the central features of the ballot issue in a list rather than in paragraph style; and
• Using indented bullets at the beginning of each item in the list.
• Expanding the "yes" or "no" response to instead say "Yes/For" or "No/Against."

The bill was approved by the Colorado House of Representatives on February 9, 2010 on a 55-7 vote with 3 Representatives not voting.^[64]. The bill died in Senate committee^[65].

d HB 1424: would change the petition drive deadline for initiative petitions back to 3 months and 3 years before an election, rather than the three months it was changed to with the enactment of HB 09-1326. The bill died without a vote in either house of the General Assembly^[66].

d HB 1432 would restrict what information could be printed in the Colorado Blue Book, the state's official publication outlining ballot measures. The bill died without a vote in either house of the General Assembly^[67]

d HB 1100: HB 1100 would have:

• Prohibited proponents of an initiative from withdrawing an initiative petition from the ballot or from consideration for the ballot after signatures to qualify it for the ballot had been submitted to election officials.
• Repealed the state's current law that authorizes the proponents of an initiative petition to withdraw the petition from consideration by requesting the Colorado Secretary of State, no later than 60 days prior to the election, not to place the petition on the ballot.
• Specified that the proponents or the designated representatives of the proponents of an initiative petition withdraw an initiative petition if the proponents or the designated representatives of the proponents:

• Do not submit the initiative petition to the secretary of state for title setting;
• Do not circulate the initiative petition for signatures after the titles and submission clause have been fixed and determined;
• Discontinue circulation of the initiative petition prior to the expiration of the period for filing an initiative petition with the secretary of state; or
• Do not file the initiative petition with the secretary of state for the examination of names and signatures.

• Made it illegal and a class 1 misdemeanor offense for any person, directly or through any other person:

• To pay, loan, or contribute, or offer or promise to pay, loan, or contribute, any money or valuable consideration to or for the proponents or the designated representatives of the proponents of an initiative petition, or to or for any other person, to compel, induce, or prevail upon the proponents or designated representatives to withdraw the petition from consideration as a ballot issue; or
• To receive, agree to accept, or contract for any money, contribution, gift, loan, or other valuable consideration for withdrawing or agreeing to withdraw an initiative petition from consideration as a ballot issue.

The bill died without a vote in either House of the General Assembly^[68]

Florida[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Florida

The following bills were introduced in the Florida State Legislature:

d S 1494: Would require all fiscal impact statements to written at eighth grade reading level. The bill died in committee without seeing a vote in either house of the Legislature^[69].

d S 2610: An amendment to the Florida Constitution that would allow people who sign a petition to revoke their signature. The bill died in committee without seeing a vote in either house of the Legislature^[70].

Illinois[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Illinois

The following bills were introduced in the Illinois General Assembly:

d HJRCA 1: A constitutional amendment that would grant the citizens of Illinois the right to recall all members of the executive branch of Illinois Government and the Illinois General Assembly. The amendment died in committee without a floor vote in either house of the General Assembly^[71].

d HJRCA 10: A constitutional amendment that would be contingent upon granting recall rights would require successive elections to replace recalled officials. The amendment died in committee without a floor vote in either house of the General Assembly^[72].

d HJRCA 20: A constitutional amendment that would guarantee that the recall provisions if approved in Illinois would be upheld by a court in the event of a legal challenge. The amendment died in committee without a floor vote in either house of the General Assembly^[73].

d HJRCA 33: A constitutional amendment that would be contingent upon granting recall rights that would allow citizens to initiate recall petitions. The amendment died in committee without a floor vote in either house of the General Assembly^[74].

d HJRCA 41: A constitutional amendment that would be contingent upon granting recall rights that would grant specific powers to the Illinois State Board of Elections in setting elections and having authority to determine the legality of recall petitions. The amendment died in committee without a floor vote in either house of the General Assembly^[75].

d HJRCA 53: A constitutional amendment that would be contingent upon granting recall rights that would grant specific powers to the Illinois State Board of Elections in administering the recall process. The amendment died in committee without a floor vote in either house of the General Assembly^[76].

d SJRCA 9: A constitutional amendment that would allow judges to be recalled in addition to executive branch officials and members of the General Assembly. The amendment died in committee without a floor vote in either house of the General Assembly^[77].

d SJRCA 13: A Senate version of HJRCA 53 that would grant specific powers to the Illinois State Board of Elections in administering the recall process. The amendment died in committee without a floor vote in either house of the General Assembly^[78].

d SJRCA 15: A constitutional amendment that would expand the recall process to local elected officials making $21,000 or more in salary. The amendment died in committee without a floor vote in either house of the General Assembly^[79].

d SJRCA 17: A constitutional amendment that would guarantee the recall process if approved in Illinois would be upheld by a court in the event of a legal challenge. at would expand the recall process to local elected officials making $21,000 or more in salary. The amendment died in committee without a floor vote in either house of the General Assembly^[80].

d SJRCA 40: A constitutional amendment that would implement a full initiative and referendum process in the State of Illinois. The amendment died in committee without a floor vote in either house of the General Assembly^[81].

Maine[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Maine

The following bills were introduced in the Maine Legislature:

a Maine Legislative Document 1730 (2010): LD 1730 requires petition forms to include a unique number identifying the petition circulator and requires petitions to be signed, notarized, and copied. In addition, the law requires that paid petition organizers must register with the state. The law also allows the state 100 days to make a final decision certifying or rejecting a petition, bringing state law in line with the Maine Constitution. Also, the law allows 10 days (instead of five) to challenge a decision and 40 days (instead of 45) for the Maine Supreme Court to rule on the challenge. In addition, the law also forbids de novo trials for petition challenges, bringing the law in line with a 1998 State Supreme Court ruling.^[82][53]

The bill was approved by the Maine House of Representatives on March 29, 2010 by a vote of 119 to 23. The Maine Senate later approved the bill on March 31, 2010 by a 20-15 vote. The Governor signed the bill into law on April 6, 2010^[83].

a Maine Legislative Document 1667 (2010): LD 1667 will resolve an inconsistency in Maine Law concerning the amount of time that the Maine Office of Fiscal and Program Review is given to prepare a fiscal impact statement for proposed initiatives. The bill also requires that fiscal impact statements for ballot initiative and sample ballots must be posted outside voting locations. In addition, the bill clarifies the qualifications that must be met by the registrar of voters and the positions a registrar may not seek or hold. The law also allows a warden, ward clerk and deputy wardens be registered voters of the county, rather than the municipality, in which they serve. This exception only applies when there is a vacancy in one of these positions and only last for the duration of the election. The bill also allows the public to inspect absentee ballot applications and envelopes prior to processing.^[84][53]

The bill was approved by the Maine House of Representatives on March 16, 2010 by acclimation. The Maine Senate on March 17, 2010, approved the bill by acclimation. The Governor signed the bill into law on March 23, 2010^[85].

a Maine Legislative Document 1668 (2010): LD 1668 was enacted. LD 1668 eliminates a previous requirement that the Maine Secretary of State must publish information about ballot questions in daily newspapers in the state.^[53]

The bill was approved by the Maine House of Representatives on January 14, 2010, by a vote of 107 to 35. The Maine Senate approved the bill on the same day by a voice vote. The bill was signed into law by the Governor on January 21, 2010^[86].

d LD 1345. LD 1345, which had been carried over from 2009, failed. LD 1345 would have amended the Maine Constitution to increase the number of signatures that a petitioner must gather for a people's veto or a direct initiative from not less than 10% of the total vote for Governor cast in the last gubernatorial election to not less than 20% of the total vote for Governor cast in the last gubernatorial election. It also would have limited the state's initiatives to one subject.

The bill died in committee without seeing a floor vote in either house of the Legislature^[87].

d LD 1690. LD 1690 failed. It would have:

• Required the Secretary of State to make electronic lists of certified signatures from petitions for direct initiatives of legislation and people's veto referenda beginning December 2010.
• Extended the time period that a person has to examine petitions when challenging the decision of the Secretary of State from 5 to 10 days.
• Authorized the Secretary of State to reject certification of signatures on a petition for a direct initiative of legislation or a people's veto if the person who signed the petition submitted a written request to the direct initiative or people's veto applicant 15 days prior to the date when the petitions are due to the municipal clerk for verification.
• Required registration of organizations that receive compensation to collect or support the collection of signatures on petitions for a direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum.

The bill died in committee without seeing a floor vote in either house of the Legislature^[88].

d LD 1692. LD 1692 failed. It would have:

• Amended the Maine Constitution to require that the ballot text of an initiative identify the amount and source of any revenue that would be required to implement the initiative, if the initiative is approved by voters.
• Identify, if applicable, any current programs whose funding would have to be reduced or eliminated if the initiative was approved.
• Directed the Office of Fiscal and Program Review to provide "reasonable assistance" to initiative sponsors in identifying revenue that will be required if the initiative is enacted.

The bill was defeated by the Maine House of Representatives on March 29, 2010, by a vote of 94 to 43^[89].

Massachusetts[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Massachusetts

The following bills were introduced in the Massachusetts General Court:

d HB 559: (dead link) HB 559, carried over from 2009, would:

• Require that petition circulators register with the government. Registration with the government would be required both by "all business operating in the commonwealth engaged in the activity of collecting signatures for initiative or referendum petitions and that are using paid signature gatherers" and "all paid signature gatherers." Circulators would have to register separately for every petition they circulate.^[90]
• Forbid paying circulators on a pay-per-signature basis.
• Forbid circulators from simultaneously circulating more than one initiative petition.

The bill died in committee without seeing a full vote in the General Court^[91].

d HB 571: HB 571, which was carried over from 2009, would:

• Require any person who collects, or attempts to collect, signatures for an initiative or referendum petition to, at all times he is actively engaged in such activity wear a sticker, button, or other similar such marking on a conspicuous place on the outer layer of his clothing readily visible to persons being solicited.
• All words on the sticker would have to be in "at least" 14-point type size.
• The identifying buttons/stickers would have to include this information:

• The first and last names of the person soliciting signatures
• The full name of the person, corporation, organization, committee, or other entity on behalf of whom the person is soliciting signatures.
• The full names of all "persons, corporations, organizations, committees, or other entities" hired or retained by the entity who hired the circulator for the purpose of obtaining signatures.

• A statement disclosing how much compensation the person is receiving for soliciting signatures.

• If the person is being paid on a pay-per-signature basis, the statement must say, "I am being paid $ (insert amount) for each signature I collect"
• If the person is paid on an hourly basis, that statement must say, "I am being paid $(insert amount) per hour to collect these signatures." * HB 571 imposes a fine of $500 on anyone who fails to comply with its provisions.

• HB 571 imposes a fine of $5,000 on "the person, corporation, organization, committee, or other entity" on behalf of whom a circulator found to be in violation is working.

The bill died in committee without seeing a full vote in the General Court.^[92]

d HB 572: (dead link) HB 572, carried over from 2009, would prohibit anyone from "engag[ing] in the collection of signatures for a initiative or referendum petition for money or any other thing of value."^[93]. The bill died in committee without seeing a full vote in the General Court^[94].

d HB 573: HB 573 would increase the increase the number of signatures required in order to qualify an initiative for the ballot from 3% of the vote cast for governor in the most recent gubernatorial election to 3% of the number of registered voters in the state at the time of the state's most recent presidential election.^[95]. The bill was killed in both House and Senate committees^[96].

d HB 679: (dead link) HB 679, which was carried over from 2009, says that any corporation doing business in Massachusetts that is related to health care services or insurance, and that makes a contribution to a ballot question committee (reportable under Chapter 55, Section 22) must return a credit to any members that is a pro-rated cost of those ballot question expenditures, if any member of the corporation so requests by objecting in writing to the expenditure. The bill died in committee without seeing a full vote in the General Court^[97].

d SB 23: (dead link) SB 23 would insert the words "The rights to freedom, equality, and civil liberties; the right of each individual to be protected by society in the enjoyment of life, Liberty and property, according to standing laws” into Section 2 of Part II, labeled "Initiative Petitions" in Article XLVIII, Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution. The bill died in committee without seeing a full vote in the General Court^[98].

d SB 357: SB 357 would amend Chapter 9 of the General Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by inserting, after Section 9A, this section:

Section 9B. There shall be in the department of the state secretary, but not under his supervision or control, a Ballot Question Title And Summary Statement Commission consisting of the state secretary or his or her designee, who shall serve as it’s chairperson, the attorney general or his or her designee, three persons designated by the governor. Persons designated by the governor will serve a term coterminous with the Governor’s and be expected to have received training and have experience in developing survey questions of a fair and unbiased nature, or be retired justices from the state court system, and in either instance not currently employees of the Commonwealth. Said Commission will receive draft titles and summaries from the attorney general for use on the state ballot and petition forms and prepare final titles and summaries for use by the state secretary. Upon receipt of said drafts from the attorney general, the Commission will circulate said drafts by electronic and other means within one business day and begin a ten day public comment period in order to solicit public and expert testimony on the merits of the draft and in order to solicit proposals for its possible improvement. Ten days following the close of the public comment period, the Commission will make available to the state secretary the completed title and summary language for printing on blank petitions by the state secretary to allow filing within the Constitutionally prescribed period. The Ballot Question Title And Summary Statement Commission shall also be responsible for drafting a 500 word explanatory statement describing the consequence of an affirmative and negative decision on the question described and submitting said statement to the state secretary for use in providing information to voters in preparation for the state election in which the question shall appear. As part of the drafting process, the Commission shall hold public hearings and receive public comment on the drafts submitted to the public for their consideration.

SECTION 2. Chapter 9 is further amended by inserting after Section 9B the following section:-

Section 9C. There shall be in the department of the state secretary, but not under his supervision or control, a Ballot Question Fiscal Impact Statement Commission consisting of the state secretary or his or her designee, who shall serve as it’s chairperson, the chairpersons and ranking minority members of the House and Senate Committees on Ways and Means or their designees, the state treasurer or his or her designee, the secretary of administration and finance or his or her designee, and a person designated by the Massachusetts Municipal Association. The Ballot Question Fiscal Impact Statement Commission shall be responsible for drafting a 100 word explanatory statement describing the fiscal consequence for state and local government finances of an affirmative decision on the question described and submitting said statement to the state secretary for use in providing information to voters in preparation for the state election in which the question shall appear. As part of the drafting process, the Commission shall hold public hearings and receive public comment on the drafts submitted to the public for their consideration. If at least five Commission members can not agree on a final fiscal impact statement the following statement will be delivered for use by the state secretary: “The fiscal impact of this measure, if any, can not be reasonably determined at this time”

SECTION 3. Chapter 9 is further amended by inserting after Section 9C the following section:-

Section 9D. For the administration and support of activities authorized under Sections 9B and 9C of this Chapter, the state secretary may employ and assign such assistants and other employees as are required.

SECTION 4. Chapter 53 of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting at the end of Section 7, the following:-

Subsection I: The state secretary shall further promulgate regulations governing the conduct of paid signature gatherers for ballot questions, designed to achieve and maintain security from forgery and fraud in the collection of such signatures on petitions for ballot questions and names thereon. Such regulations shall:

(a) prohibit companies paid to collect signatures for ballot petitions from contracting to do so for more than one ballot question in any two year election cycle;

(b) prohibit individual signature gatherers paid for such services from collecting signatures for more than one ballot question during the same twenty-four hour period;

(c) require individual signature gatherers paid for such services to display identification indicating the company or organization that is paying for the service, a phone number for that organization, and the individual collector’s state of residence;

(d) require that individual signature gatherers paid for such services sign a sworn oath upon submitting such signatures to the local registrar declaring that the signatures submitted were signed in their presence, and, to the best of their knowledge, the signatures submitted are names of qualified voters.

SECTION 5. Chapter 54 of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after Section 53 the following section:-

Section 53A. The secretary of the Commonwealth shall publish the following on its website and in the information for voters material:

(a) the most recent list of the top 10 contributors to committees organized for the purpose of supporting and committees organized for the purpose of defeating a ballot question and all contributors to each committee organized for said purposes contributing above $5,000 in any one election cycle;

(b) the most recent contribution amount for each listed contributor;

(c) the address, employer, and occupation of each listed contributor;

(d) the most recent total of expenditures for each committee organized for the purpose of supporting or defeating a ballot question;

(e) a graph or chart depicting the percentage of all contributions made to all committees organized for the purpose of supporting and all committees organized for the purpose of defeating a ballot question. Such graph or chart should depict contributions in amounts under $50, between $50 and $199, between $200 and $999, between $1,000 and $9,999, and those above $10,000;

(f) the physical address and phone number of the Office of Campaign and Political Finance ("OCPF")

(g) OCPF's website address;

(h) a statement informing voters that they can access more information regarding the financial information of ballot question committees at OCPF's physical location or website.

SECTION 6. Chapter 55 of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after Section 5B, subsection (a) ii, the following:-

(iii) whether the committee has been organized in support or in opposition to a specific ballot question

SECTION 7. Chapter 55 is further amended by inserting after Section 18 subsection (h) the following:-

(i) Notwithstanding the provisions of other clauses of this section, all contributions or aggregate contributions made to a ballot question committee in excess of $2,500 within 45 days of the election on which the ballot question appears, shall be reported to the Office of Campaign and Political Finance within 24 hours of receipt by the ballot question committee.

The bill was reported favorably by the Joint Committee on Election Laws on April 8, 2010^[5]. However, the bill died without seeing a floor vote in either House of the General Court^[5].

Michigan[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Michigan

The following bills were introduced in the Michigan Legislature:

d HB 4364: Would require the name of a petition circulator to be printed on the official petition.

d HB 4560: Would make revisions to Michigan's recall law.

d SB 1357: Would require campaigns for or against constitutional conventions to follow campaign disclosure laws.

d SB 1358: Would set a campaign disclosure reporting schedule for constitutional convention campaigns. d SB 7: Would increase penalties on petition circulators who fraudulently obtain signatures.

d SB 9: Would make revision's to Michigan's recall law.

d SB 144: Would switch the campaign finance reporting deadlines for Ballot Measure Committees.

d SB 394: Would increase restrictions to Michigan's recall law only allowing the law to be used for cases of malfeasance and serious corruption.

d SB 413: Would increase criteria in order to accept signatures on petitions. The bill was approved by the Michigan State Senate on January 27, 2010 on a 31-6 vote. The bill awaits a vote in the Michigan House of Representatives^[99].

d SB 951/952: Would change the format of official initiative petitions including having the full ballot question on the petition and changing the size type and how many lines would be on a petition.

d SB 953: Would require the Michigan Secretary of State to post on its official website the subject matter in relation to potential ballot measures. The bill was approved by the Michigan State Senate on January 27, 2010 on a 29-8 vote. The bill awaits a vote in the Michigan House of Representatives^[100].

d SB 954: Would require warning disclaimers on official initiative petitions in Michigan. The bill was approved by the Michigan State Senate on January 27, 2010 on a 30-7 vote. The bill awaits a vote in the Michigan House of Representatives^[101].

d SJR C: Would add a distribution requirement that initiative petitions must have the signature of one elector in each of the state's counties along with 42 counties having 100 or more electors signing petitions within the respective county.

Mississippi[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Mississippi

The following bills were introduced in the Mississippi Legislature:

dSB 2102: Would allow recall of local election officials including school board members. The bill died in legislative committee without seeing a vote in either house of the legislature^[102].

Missouri[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Missouri

The following bills were introduced in the Missouri General Assembly:

d HB 1441: Would establish registration requirements for petition circulators. The bill was defeated without seeing a vote in either house of the General Assembly^[103].

d HB 1749: A initiative and referendum reform package that would ban pay per signature for circulators, prohibits circulators from being convicted of forgery, makes it a crime to sign a petition in another person's name, no longer count petition signatures before ballot titles are formed by the Missouri Secretary of State, and requiring fiscal impact statements for ballot measures. The bill was defeated without seeing a vote in either house of the General Assembly^[104].

d HB 1788: A bill that would ban out-of-state petition circulators, prohibits circulators from being convicted of forgery, bans multiple petition circulation by a circulator, bans pay-per-signature for circulators, requires circulators to file affidavits with the Missouri Secretary of State verifying their eligibility. The bill was approved by the Missouri House of Representatives on April 19, 2010 on a 130-24 vote. The bill was defeated in the Senate without a floor vote scheduled^[105].

d HB 1842: Would change counting requirements to determine if a tax measure passes the super-majority requirements. The bill was approved by the Missouri House of Representatives on March 24, 2010. The bill died in the Missouri State Senate despite the bill was approved out of Senate committee on April 26, 2010^[106].

d HB 2180: A bill that would change the verification procedures for initiative and referendum petitions including adding increased oversight of initiative applications by the Missouri State Auditor and Missouri Attorney General. The bill was defeated without seeing a vote in either house of the General Assembly^[107].

d HB 2465: Would allow citizens to recall Board of Directors members of Ambulance Districts. The bill was defeated without seeing a vote in either house of the General Assembly^[108].

d HJR 63: Would add a distribution requirement that in order to qualify an initiative that signatures must come from two-thirds of Missouri's congressional districts. The resolution was defeated without seeing a vote in either house of the General Assembly^[109].

d HJR 92: Would change minimum requirements for placing a signature on an initiative or referendum petition. The resolution was defeated without seeing a vote in either house of the General Assembly^[110].

d HJR 94: Would add a congressional district requirement in addition to meeting the minimum signature threshold. The resolution was defeated without seeing a vote in either house of the General Assembly^[111].

d SB 581: Would allow third class cities in Missouri to have advisory referendums with a simple majority requirement. The bill was approved by the Missouri Senate on a 29-2 vote with three Senators not voting on February 18, 2010. The bill was defeated in the Missouri House without seeing a floor vote^[112].

d SB 796: Would ban pay-per-signature of petition circulators. The bill was defeated without seeing a vote in either house of the General Assembly^[113].

d SB 818: Changes in how petitions for initiatives and referendums are verified and approved. The bill was defeated without seeing a vote in either house of the General Assembly^[114].

Nebraska[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Nebraska

The following bills were introduced in the Nebraska Legislature:

d LB 1059: Would allow all petition signatures done electronically. The bill died in committee and did not receive a floor vote in the Legislature^[115].

d LB 349: Would allow Nebraskans to recall elected officials committing malfeasance or failing to perform their duties in their elected positions. The bill died in committee and did not receive a floor vote in the Legislature^[116].

d LB 718: Would require petition circulators to read a warning statement before a person signs a petition. The bill died in committee and did not receive a floor vote in the Legislature^[117].

d LR 279 CA: Would decrease signature requirements for constitutional amendments from fifteen to ten percent of registered voters and statutes from seven to four percent. The amendment died in committee and did not receive a floor vote in the Legislature^[118].

d LR 300 CA: An amendment to the Nebraska Constitution that would change signature requirements for initiative petitions involving geographic distribution. The amendment died in committee and did not receive a floor vote in the Legislature^[119].

d LR 301 CA: Specifies that the signature requirements for the upcoming election year must be re-calculated by January 1. The amendment died in committee and did not receive a floor vote in the Legislature^[120].

d LR 472: A joint resolution that would allow a study to see how gathering initiative petitions through the internet works. The bill died in committee and did not receive a floor vote in the Legislature^[121].

New Mexico[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in New Mexico

The following bills were introduced in the New Mexico Legislature:

d HJR 11: An amendment to the New Mexico Constitution that would allow citizens to recall elected officials. The resolution died in committee without seeing a floor vote in the Legislature^[122].

Ohio[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Ohio

The following bills were introduced in the Ohio General Assembly:

d HJR 13: An amendment to the Ohio Constitution that would require a two-thirds super-majority vote in order to approve a statewide ballot measure. The amendment has not been heard in any committee or is considered for a floor vote^[123].

d HB 377: A bill that would change requirements for petition circulators in Ohio. Provisions of the bill include all circulators to register with the Secretary of State, prohibits anyone who has been convicted of fraud or identity theft from circulating petitions, licensing organizations that provide paid petition circulators, and require mandatory training on initiative laws before circulating petitions. The bill was approved by the Ohio House of Representatives on March 24, 2010 by a 54-45 vote and is awaiting action in the Senate^[124].

d HB 260: An elections reform bill that changes requirements involving voter registration, provisional ballots, election observers, voter challenges, and other political entities. The bill was approved by the Ohio House of Representatives on November 18, 2009 by a 52-46 vote and is awaiting action in the Senate^[125].

Oklahoma[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Oklahoma

The following bills were introduced in the Oklahoma Legislature:

d HB 1452: Would create voter information pamphlets that would be distributed for statewide ballot measures. The measured died in committee without seeing a floor vote in either house of the legislature^[126].

d HB 2123: Would ban petition circulators from being paid per signature. The measured died in committee without seeing a floor vote in either house of the legislature^[127].

Oregon[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Oregon

The following bills were introduced in the Oregon Legislature:

a Oregon Senate Bill 1015 (2010): SB 1015 is a bill that would end the double-majority requirement for district formation, city charters, consolidations, and mergers.^[53] Bill takes affect 91 days after regular session ends. The bill was approved by the Oregon State Senate by a 30-0 vote on February 11, 2010 and passed the Oregon House of Representatives on a 58-0-2 vote on February 19, 2010. The Governor of Oregon signed the bill into law on March 4, 2010^[128].

d SB 1043: Allows legislative staff to explain a vote on a legislative-referred measure done by a member of the Oregon House of Representatives or the Oregon State Senate. The bill died in committee without seeing a floor vote in either house of the legislature.^[128]

a Oregon Senate Bill 998 (2010): SB 998 contains a package of election and campaign finance provisions. Under the law, registration to obtain signatures for recall or referendum is valid until the signature have been filed for verification. The law also permits all long term absent electors to vote by fax. The law alters the requirements to discontinue a statement of organization. In addition, the act mandates that the Secretary of State create and distribute guidelines for setting the boundaries of precincts and electoral districts. Also, the law clarifies that public employees, without violating restrictions on employee political activity during work time, may explain the vote of a lawmaker on acts referred to the people, an act for which prospective referendum petition has been filed, or a constitutional amendment. The raises the fundraising threshold for certain campaign finance compliance measures. It also broadens the prohibition against paying fines for the misuse of contributions with contributed funds. In addition, the law exempts some information on contributors to the Oregon Political Party Fund from certain disclosure requirements. The law also selected a ballot title for and arguments in favor of House Joint Resolution 101. The act gave ballot titles to House Joint Resolution 48 and Senate Joint Resolution 41.^[129][53]

The bill was approved by the Oregon State Senate by a 30-0 vote on February 17, 2010 and passed the Oregon House of Representatives on a 36-23 vote on February 25, 2010. The Governor of Oregon signed the bill into law on the same day.^[128]

South Dakota[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in South Dakota

The following bills were introduced in the South Dakota Legislature:

a South Dakota Senate Bill 13 (2010): SB 13 is a 2010 South Dakota elections reform law that recognized signatures as valid if the signer was on the active voter registration list at the time he or she signed the petition. In addition, the law requires the circulator's signature to be notarized. The law also allows secondary elections which do not involve federal races to use hand counted, rather than electronically marked, ballots. The law also requires the state to produce sample ballots at least 45 days prior to an election. The act also permits voters covered under the "Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act" to request that their ballot be sent electronically. The bill additionally sets procedures for handling absentee ballot which do not meet the legal requirements for opening, and the law details the items county auditors must provide to the recount board.^[53][130]

The bill was approved by the South Dakota State Senate on January 21, 2010 by a 33-0 vote. The South Dakota House of Representatives later approved the bill by a 69-1 vote on February 24, 2010^[5]. Governor Mike Rounds approved the bill on March 8, 2010^[5].

Utah[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Utah

The following bills were introduced in the Utah Legislature:

a Utah House Bill 44 (2010): HB 44 changes how certain terms in Utah's initiative laws are defined. The bill passed by a 70-2 vote on January 25, 2010 in the Utah House of Representatives. The bill passed the Utah State Senate by a 24-0-5 vote on February 25, 2010 and was signed into law by the Governor of Utah on March 29, 2010^[131].

a Utah Senate Bill 119 (2010): SB 119 requires that any special election involving bonding, levies, or sales taxes must have a 2/3rd's vote from the governing body requesting the election.^[6]

d SB 177: Modified signature requirements for Utah initiative petitions. The bill died in committee without a floor vote in either house of the Legislature^[132].

a Utah Senate Bill 275 (2010): SB 275 changes the procedures for the withdrawal of signatures from initiative petitions, removing the requirement for a notarized statement. This requirement is replaced by a requirement for a signed statement, including voter's identification info and address.^[6]

Washington State[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the Washington State Legislature:

d HB 1057: Requiring ballot measures to list the impact towards property tax levies. The bill died in committee without seeing a floor vote in the Legislature^[133].

d HB 2310: Easing restrictions on how voter information pamphlets are distributed. The bill died in committee without seeing a floor vote in the Legislature^[134].

d HB 2311: Repealing public notice requirements for ballot measures. The bill died in committee without seeing a floor vote in the Legislature^[135].

d HB 2397: Bans petition circulators from gathering signatures less than fifteen away from a retail store. The bill was approved by the Washington House of Representatives on February 13, 2010 by a 82-12 vote, but died in Senate Committee^[136].

d HB 2418: Allows petition signatures to be made public records. The bill died in committee without seeing a floor vote in the Legislature^[137].

d HB 2469: Prohibits landlords from restricting initiative campaigns from engaging in political activity on their properties. The bill died in committee without seeing a floor vote in the Legislature^[138].

d HB 2570: Would increase restrictions on paid petition circulators. The bill died in committee without seeing a floor vote in the Legislature^[139].

d HB 2579: Would allow people to withdraw their names from petitions through a written request to the Washington Secretary of State. The bill died in committee without seeing a floor vote in the Legislature^[140].

d HB 2612: Would exempt petition signatures for initiative and referendums from public inspection. The bill died in committee without seeing a floor vote in the Legislature^[141].

d HB 2613: Would increase restrictions for paid circulators of initiative, recall, and referendum petitions. The bill died in committee without seeing a floor vote in the Legislature^[142].

d HB 2614: Would modify the official initiative petition form. The bill died in committee without seeing a floor vote in the Legislature^[143].

d HB 2615: Would increase filing fees for initiative and referendum petitions. The bill died in committee without seeing a floor vote in the Legislature^[144].

d HB 2714: Would prohibit public release of petition signatures. The bill died in committee without seeing a floor vote in the Legislature^[145].

d HB 2981: Would require fiscal impact statements published in the voter information pamphlet. The bill died in committee without seeing a floor vote in the Legislature^[146].

d HJR 4212: An amendment to the Washington Constitution that would eliminate the mandatory public notice requirement for constitutional amendments. The resolution died in committee without seeing a floor vote in the Legislature^[147].

d SB 5098: A Senate version of HB 1057 that would require ballot measures to list the impact towards property tax levies. The bill died in committee without seeing a floor vote in the Legislature^[148].

d SB 5508: A bill to deal with errors in voter information pamphlets. The bill died in committee without seeing a floor vote in the Legislature^[149].

d SB 6099: Would require fiscal impact statements published for ballot measures dealing with tax increases or decreases. The bill died in committee without seeing a floor vote in the Legislature^[150].

d SB 6123: A Senate version of HB 2311 that would repeal public notice requirements for ballot measures. The bill died in committee without seeing a floor vote in the Legislature^[151].

d SB 6184: Changing administrative procedures on how the Washington Office of Financial Management and the Washington Attorney General handles initiatives. The bill died in committee without seeing a floor vote in the Legislature^[152].

d SB 6449: Would increase restrictions for paid petition circulators. The bill was approved by the Washington State Senate on February 15, 2010 by a 29-19 vote, but failed in House Committee^[153].

d SB 6665: Would raise filing fees for initiatives from $5 to $250. The bill died in committee without seeing a floor vote in the Legislature^[154].

d SB 6797: Would eliminate financial hardship exemption for local governments distributing voter information pamphlets. The bill died in committee without seeing a floor vote in the Legislature^[155].

d SJR 8202: Would repeal the initiative process from the state constitution. The resolution died in committee without seeing a floor vote in the Legislature^[156].

dSJR 8217: Would eliminate the public notice requirement for constitutional amendments. The resolution died in committee without seeing a floor vote in the Legislature^[157].

Wyoming[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Wyoming

The following bills were introduced in the Wyoming Legislature:

d HB 115: Allowing voters via petition to ask for specific excise taxes to be placed on the ballot for voter approval. The bill was approved by the Wyoming House of Representatives by a 33-24 vote on February 24, 2010, but died in Senate committee^[158].

States without I&R[edit]

Alabama[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the Alabama Legislature:

d HB 198/SB 130: Require the Alabama Secretary of State to post on its website all proposed statewide constitutional amendments and provide a discussion platform in which public comments could be exchanged in an interactive format. The bills died in committee without seeing a floor vote in the Legislature^[159][160].

d HB 201/SB 275/SB 81: Amend the Alabama Constitution to allow for initiated state statutes and initiated constitutional amendments. The bills died in committee without seeing a floor vote in the Legislature^{[161][162][163]}.

d HB 502/SB 177: Submit to the state's voters a question about whether to hold a constitutional convention. The bills died in committee without seeing a floor vote in the Legislature^[164][165].

Connecticut[edit]

The following proposals were made during the 2009-2010 session of the Connecticut Legislature:

d HB 5322: Which would increase the minimum reporting registration threshold for campaigns in support or opposition of a referendum from $1,000 to $2,000. The bill died in committee without seeing a floor vote in the Legislature^[166].

Delaware[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the Delaware Legislature:

d SB 12: Legislation that would implement the initiative process in Delaware. The bill died in committee without a full vote in either house of the Legislature^[167].

d SB 13: An amendment to the Delaware Constitution that would change the qualification requirements for placing constitutional amendments from two legislative sessions to the next general election upon passage by the Delaware General Assembly. The bill died in committee without a full vote in either house of the Legislature^[168].

Hawaii[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the Hawaii Legislature:

d HB 497: Would prohibit blank votes and undervotes being counted in referendums involving constitutional amendments. The bill died without seeing a vote in either house of the legislature^[169].

d HB 838: Would affirm that only questions ending in "Yes" and "No" would be counted in the official vote tally. The bill died without seeing a vote in either house of the legislature^[170].

d SB 329: Would allow the initiative process to be implemented in Hawaii. The bill died without seeing a vote in either house of the legislature^[171].

d SB 330: Would allow the recall process to be implemented in Hawaii. The bill died without seeing a vote in either house of the legislature^[172].

d SB 1019: Senate version of HB 838 that would require ballot questions to be ended in a Yes/No format in order to be counted. The bill died without seeing a vote in either house of the legislature^[173].

d SB 1101: Would allow Hawaiians to propose amendments to the Hawaii Constitution. The bill died without seeing a vote in either house of the legislature^[174].

Indiana[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the Indiana Legislature:

d HB 1137: Which would allow recall of elected officials in the State of Indiana. If approved, would set the signature requirement to 10 percent of the vote in the last election of the given political subdivision if it involves local or district office. For statewide office, it would be 10 percent of ballots cast in the last election for Indiana Secretary of State^[175]. The bill died in committee without seeing a full vote in either house of the General Assembly^[176]

d SB 324: Which would require a mandatory voter information guide on constitutional amendments 105 days before the election. The bill passed the Indiana State Senate on a 48-2 vote on February 2, 2010. The bill died in House committee without seeing a full up or down vote^[177]

Iowa[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the Iowa Legislature:

d HF 205: Which would allow Iowa citizens to recall elected officials. If approved, the bill would allow recall after a successful petition of 20 percent of signatures in a political subdivision^[178]. The proposal died in committee without seeing a floor vote in the General Assembly^[179].

d HJR 5 a separate proposal allowing Iowans to recall statewide elected officials including the Governor of Iowa. The proposal died in committee without seeing a floor vote in the General Assembly^[180].

d HJR 2016: Which would allow Iowa citizens to vote on certain acts of the Iowa General Assembly. The resolution would set the requirement to ten percent of registered voters who cast ballots in the last election of Iowa Governor with the deadline of 90 days after the General Assembly adjourns^[181]. The Joint Resolution died in committee without seeing a floor vote in either house of the General Assembly^[182].

d SJR 2005: Which would allow citizen initiative in the State of Iowa. If approved, would set the signature requirement to five percent of registered voters who cast ballots in the last election for Governor of Iowa^[183]. The joint Resolution died in committee without seeing a floor vote in either house of the General Assembly^[184].

Louisiana[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the Louisiana Legislature:

a Louisiana House Bill 1162 (2010): HB 1162 (dead link) is a 2010 Louisiana law which requires that the targets of recall petitions be notified of particular actions taken in the certification process and of certain actions taken in the process of challenging certification.^[53][185]

The bill passed the Louisiana House of Representatives on April 22, 2010 by a 87-0 vote and was approved by the Louisiana State Senate on June 10, 2010 on a 35-1 vote. Governor Bobby Jindal signed the bill into law on June 25, 2010.^[186].

d HB 625: (dead link) Requires the Governor of Louisiana to send the official recall proclamation to the elections official responsible for handling the election. Also, an appeals process is created for contesting recall procedures. The bill died in committee without a vote in either house of the Legislature^[187].

a Louisiana House Bill 639 (2010): HB 639 is a 2010 Louisiana law which mandates that a referendum authorizing bonds must include data about the estimated first-year millage of those bonds. In addition, any measure authorizing a tax must include the rate of that tax. These requirements also apply to notices of elections.^[188]

The first version of the bill passed the Louisiana House of Representatives on April 14, 2010 by a 96-0 vote and was approved by Louisiana State Senate on June 7, 2010 by a 34-0 vote including Senate amendments. The House passed the final version including the Senate amendments on June 14, 2010 by a 94-0 vote. Governor Bobby Jindal signed the bill into law on June 25, 2010^[189].

d SB 186: (dead link) An amendment to the Louisiana Constitution that not would not allow tax referendums to be approved unless one third of the jurisdiction's registered electors actually voted on the measure. The bill died in committee without a vote in either house of the Legislature^[190].

d SB 332: (dead link) Which would allow Louisiana citizens to vote on statutes from the Louisiana Legislature. The bill died in committee without a vote in either house of the Legislature^[191].

d SB 652: (dead link) Which would require ballot propositions to be worded in simple language in the form of a question. The bill passed the Louisiana House of Representatives on June 16, 2010 on a 90-0 vote, but died in Senate Committee^[192].

Maryland[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the Maryland General Assembly:

a Maryland House Bill 378 (2010): HB 378 is a 2010 Maryland law which sets the fourth Friday prior to an election as the deadline for ballot issue committees to file campaign finance reports.^[53][193] The bill was signed into law by Governor of Maryland Martin O'Malley on May 4, 2010^[194].

d SB 240: A bill proposing that signatures on petitions must match the name indicated on the statewide voter registration list. The bill died in committee without seeing a floor vote in either house of the General Assembly^[195].

Minnesota[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the Minnesota Legislature:

dHF 365: A amendment to the Minnesota Constitution that would allow Minnesotans to initiate petitions to amend the state constitution.

New Hampshire[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the New Hampshire Legislature:

d CACR 25: A amendment to the New Hampshire Constitution that would allow New Hampshire citizens to veto legislation by referendum. The bill died in committee without a floor vote in either house of the Legislature^[196].

New Jersey[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the New Jersey Legislature:

A 1804: A bill that would reduce the number of signatures to recall an elected official under the New Jersey Uniform Recall Law.

A 2557: A bill that would change various provisions to the New Jersey Uniform Recall Law.

A 694: A bill that would require any statewide ballot measure involving a bond issue to have a fiscal impact statement.

ACR 16: A constitutional amendment that would allow New Jersey citizens to vote on legislative-referred state statutes.

ACR 30: A constitutional amendment that would allow New Jersey citizens to use the initiative and referendum process to impose fiscal limits on state government.

ACR 74: A constitutional amendment that would allow New Jersey citizens to vote in veto referendums that could reverse state statutes or decisions of the New Jersey Supreme Court.

ACR 97: A constitutional amendment to reduce the amount of signatures needed to recall elected officials.

ACR 83: One of two constitutional amendments to provide New Jersey citizens with initiative and referendum rights.

SCR 86: One of two constitutional amendments to provide New Jersey citizens with initiative and referendum rights.

New York[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the New York Legislature:

d A 10193: Would grant New Yorkers the right to veto legislation by referendum. The bill died in committee without seeing a floor vote in either house of the Legislature^[197].

d A 10307: Requires mandatory fiscal impact statements for any ballot measure that could create debt to the state budget, but does not require a deficit reduction mandate. The bill died in committee without seeing a floor vote in either house of the Legislature^[198].

d A 10478: Would require the New York State Board of Elections to issue a publication of any approved ballot measures. The bill died in committee without seeing a floor vote in either house of the Legislature^[199].

d A 1641: Would allow citizens to challenge the legality of ballot measures published in voter information booklets which is contingent upon passage of A 10478. The bill died in committee without seeing a floor vote in either house of the Legislature^[200].

dA 2527: Would implement the initiative and referendum process in New York State. Under the proposed law, the Governor of New York cannot veto an approved measure. Also, the new law would restrict how initiative and referendum can be used involving health or safety related provisions. The bill died in committee without seeing a floor vote in either house of the Legislature^[201].

dA 4969: Would allow citizens in New York to directly initiative state statutes. The bill died in committee without seeing in a floor vote in the Legislature^[202].

dA 6346: Would implement the initiative and referendum process in New York State using an indirect method over traditional. The bill died in committee without seeing in a floor vote in the Legislature^[203].

dA 6815: Would allow New Yorkers to recall elected officials. The bill died in committee without seeing in a floor vote in the Legislature^[204].

d A 6816: Another version of a bill that would allow directly initiated state statutes. The bill died in committee without seeing in a floor vote in the Legislature^[205].

dA 8450: Would require any statewide ballot measure creating debt to have a mandatory fiscal statement. A difference from A 10307 is it requires a estimated debt service and amortization period and requires that 10% of any surplus be used to pay down deficits. The bill died in committee without seeing in a floor vote in the Legislature^[206].

d A 9085: Would in the event if recall is approved that electors residing in the State of New York have the power to remove an official via recall. The bill died in committee without seeing in a floor vote in the Legislature^[207].

d A 9496: Prohibits certain individuals that can be elected delegates for a constitutional convention. The bill died in committee without seeing in a floor vote in the Legislature^[208].

d A 957: One of two bills that would require the New York State Board of Elections to publish mandatory voter information guides for statewide ballot measures. The bill died in committee without seeing in a floor vote in the Legislature^[209].

d S 1582: Would require all titles of statewide ballot measures to be written clearly and concisely. The bill was defeated in committee without seeing a floor vote in either House of the Legislature^[210].

d S 1762: One of two bills that would require fiscal impact statements for ballot measures that create debt without a mandatory deficit reduction requirement. The bill was defeated in committee without seeing a floor vote in either House of the Legislature^[211].

d S 3451: A bill that would have required if voters approve a change of statutes via referendum should be subject to further referendums. The bill was defeated in committee without seeing a floor vote in either House of the Legislature^[212].

d S 3525: One of two constitutional amendments that would implement the initiative and referendum process in New York State, but with indirect statute initiation. The bill was defeated in committee without seeing a floor vote in either House of the Legislature^[213].

d S 6060: Would grant New Yorkers to initiate referendums to line-item veto statutes. The bill was defeated in committee without seeing a floor vote in either House of the Legislature^[214].

d S 6093: Would allow a limited Constitutional convention. The bill was defeated in committee without seeing a floor vote in either House of the Legislature^[215].

d S 6429: Would allow New Yorkers to amend the New York State Constitution. The bill was defeated in committee without seeing a floor vote in either House of the Legislature^[216].

d S 7325: Would set procedures for vetoing legislation by referendum. The bill was defeated in committee without seeing a floor vote in either House of the Legislature^[217].

Pennsylvania[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the Pennsylvania Legislature:

d HB 1559: A proposal that would allow for Pennsylvania citizens to recall state and local officials along with providing a process for instituting recalls.

d HB 1562: A amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution that would grant citizens the right to recall elected officials.

d HB 1761: A bill that would limit certain powers granted in constitutional conventions.

d HB 1929: A bill that would set procedures for constitutional conventions.

d HB 542: A bill that would require summaries of statewide referendums and mandatory fiscal impact statements.

d HB 695: Would automatically put a ballot question to Pennsylvania voters on a constitutional convention on the status of the state legislature.

d SB 192: A bill that would implement the initiative and referendum process in Pennsylvania.

d SB 804: Another bill that would implement the initiative and referendum process in Pennsylvania, but would use an indirect method over traditional methods to initiate statutes and amendments.

Rhode Island[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the Rhode Island Legislature:

d HB 7210: (dead link) Legislation that would set the process for using the initiative process. The bill died in committee without seeing a vote in either house of the Legislature^[218].

d HB 7212: (dead link) A amendment to the Rhode Island Constitution to implement the initiative process. The bill died in committee without seeing a vote in either house of the Legislature^[219].

d SB 2103: (dead link) A Senate version of HB 7210 that would set the process for using the initiative process. The bill died in committee without seeing a vote in either house of the Legislature^[220].

dSB 2392: (dead link) Would present a ballot question at next election to ask voters for a constitutional convention. The bill died in committee without seeing a vote in either house of the Legislature^[221].

d SB 2456: (dead link) Would require voter information pamphlets on all qualified referendums. The bill died in committee without seeing a vote in either house of the Legislature^[222].

dSB 2511: (dead link) Would require any legislative-referred constitutional amendment to be approved for two successive legislative sessions before qualifying the measure on the ballot. The bill died in committee without seeing a vote in either house of the Legislature^[223].

d SJR 2097: (dead link) A constitutional amendment to implement the initiative process. The joint resolution died in committee without seeing a vote in either house of the Legislature^[224].

South Carolina[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the South Carolina Legislature:

d HB 3579: A bill that would allow all government entities to hold referendum elections on a quarterly basis. The bill passed the South Carolina House of Representatives on April 1, 2009 by a 99-11 vote. The bill died in Senate committee^[225].

d HJR 3533: A constitutional amendment that would allow recall of elected officials in South Carolina. The resolution died in committee without seeing a vote in both houses of the Legislature^[226].

d HJR 4108: A constitutional amendment that would create an initiative process in South Carolina. The resolution died in committee without seeing a vote in both houses of the Legislature^[227].

d SJR 1002: Would allow South Carolina citizens to propose amendments to the South Carolina Constitution. The resolution died in committee without seeing a vote in both houses of the Legislature^[228].

d SJR 80: A Senate version of a constitutional amendment that would implement the initiative process in South Carolina. The resolution died in committee without seeing a vote in both houses of the Legislature^[229].

d SJR 995: A Senate version of a constitutional amendment that would allow citizens to recall elected officials. The resolution died in committee without seeing a vote in both houses of the Legislature^[230].

Tennessee[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the Tennessee Legislature:

dHB 3065: A proposed campaign finance bill that would bar public funds being used in support or opposition of any referendum. The bill was defeated in a House committee without seeing a floor vote in either house of the Legislature^[231].

d SB 111: A constitutional amendment that would require the publication of a mandatory voter guide for any approved statewide ballot measure. The bill died without seeing a floor vote in each house of the legislature^[232].

dSB 2748: Expands SB 111 in which upon its approval as a referendum would require timely publication of referendum publications on the official website of the Tennessee Secretary of State. The bill died without seeing a floor vote in each house of the legislature^[233].

Vermont[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the Vermont Legislature:

d H 714: Legislation that would implement the initiative process in Vermont. The bill died in legislative committee without receiving a hearing or a floor vote in either house of the legislature^[234].

Virginia[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the Virginia Legislature:

These proposals were made during the 2009-2010 session of the Virginia General Assembly. The General Assembly has ended its session for 2009-2010.

a Virginia House Bill 104 (2010): HB 104 expands the mandatory notice requirement for calling referendums to 81 days instead of 60.^[53]

d HB 1386: Would allow a mandatory voter information pamphlet for any approved statewide ballot measure.

d HJ 98: First consideration of a amendment to the Virginia Constitution to allow its citizens to recall elected the Governor of Virginia, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General or any member of the Virginia General Assembly.

West Virginia[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the West Virginia Legislature:

d HB 4156: A bill that would allow West Virginians to recall elected federal officials or appointed federal officers that do not hold a lifetime appointment. The bill died in committee without a floor vote in the legislature^[235].

d HB 4313: Would have required all referendum campaigns to register and produce campaign finance disclosure reports with the West Virginia Secretary of State. The bill died in committee without a floor vote in the legislature^[236].

Wisconsin[edit]

The following bills were introduced in the Wisconsin Legislature:

d SB 43/AB 63: Which would require special interest groups who issue ads in the last 60 days before a referendum election to influence the passage or defeat of a measure to disclose their donors. The bill died in legislative session^[237].

d AB 645: Increase minimum reporting threshold for referendum groups at the state and local level to $750 in contributions received and expenditures made. The bill died in legislative session^[238].

a Wisconsin Senate Bill 417 (2010): SB 417 increases the minimum registration and reporting threshold for referendum groups.

See also[edit]

• Changes in 2009 to laws governing the initiative process
• Changes in 2008 to laws governing the initiative process
• Changes in 2007 to laws governing the initiative process

Footnotes[edit]

v • e Laws governing ballot measures Ballot measure policy terms Glossary of ballot measure policy terms 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 Laws governing the initiative process Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Illinois • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • New Mexico • Nevada • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington • Wyoming Laws governing recall Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Florida • Georgia • Idaho • Illinois • Kansas • Louisiana • Maine • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Rhode Island • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming Laws governing local 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 Signature requirements Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Illinois • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington • Wyoming Changes to laws 2024 • 2023 • 2022 • 2021 • 2020 • 2019 • 2018 School bond and tax laws Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • District of Columbia • 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 Laws governing campaign finance Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • District of Columbia • 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 Petitions to impanel grand juries Laws governing citizen grand juries in Kansas • Laws governing citizen grand juries in Nevada • Laws governing citizen grand juries in North Dakota • Laws governing citizen grand juries in New Mexico • Laws governing citizen grand juries in Nebraska •Laws governing citizen grand juries in Oklahoma