Changes in 2019 to laws governing ballot measures

Laws governing ballot measures
State
• Laws governing state ballot measures
• Laws governing state initiative processes
• Laws governing state recall processes
• Changes to ballot measure law in 2019
• List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2019
Local
• Laws governing local ballot measures
Learn about Ballotpedia's election legislation tracker.
2020 » « 2018

Ballotpedia tracked 342 legislative proposals concerning ballot measures, initiatives, veto referendums, referrals, local ballot measures, and recall elections in 41 states during 2019 legislative sessions.

Of the 342 introduced bills, state legislatures passed 48 bills (14.0%). Governors vetoed four bills, meaning 44 bills were enacted into law.

On this page, you will find:

• a list of bills enacted in 2019 regarding ballot measures or recall elections
• a map and list of bills proposed bills in 2019 regarding ballot measures or recall elections
• a list of court rulings that changed ballot measure processes

Legislation approved in 2019[edit]

Are you aware of a bill related to ballot measures or recall that was enacted during a 2019 legislative session that is not listed here, email us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

By legislative vote[edit]

By state[edit]

Arizona[edit]

• House Bill 2023: The legislation made tampering with political signs supporting or opposing a ballot measure a class 2 misdemeanor.^[2]

• Senate Bill 1451: The legislation changed several policies regarding initiative petitions and initiative petition circulators, including requiring non-resident circulators and paid circulators to register with the state; requiring registered circulators to submit a notarized affidavit confirming that they're eligible and knowledgeable of election laws; prohibiting people who have violated certain election laws, were convicted of felonies without restored civil rights, or convicted of fraud or forgery from registering as petition circulators; requiring that petition signature sheets be rejected for not meeting proper formatting.^[3]

Arkansas[edit]

• House Joint Resolution 1008 (Issue 3): Voters rejected the constitutional amendment on November 3, 2020. The constitutional amendment would have changed the following:^[4]

• increased the signature distribution requirement for initiatives from requiring a certain number of signatures from 15 counties to a certain number of signatures from 45 counties;
• changed the signature submission deadline from four months before the general election to January 15 of the election year;
• eliminated the cure period for initiative signature submissions;
• required legal challenges to ballot measure to be filed no later than April 15 of the election year; and
• required a three-fifths vote, instead of a simple majority, of the Legislature to refer a proposed constitutional amendment to voters.

• Senate Bill 346: The legislation transferred the power to approve a filed initiative, including the initiative's ballot title and popular name, from the attorney general to the Arkansas Board of Election Commissioners. SB 346 also changed the timeline for certifying a ballot title and popular name until after the required number of signatures have been submitted.^[5]

California[edit]

• Assembly Bill 116: The legislation removed the voter approval requirement for enhanced infrastructure financing districts to issue bonds.^[6]

• Assembly Bill 698: The legislation provided that a signature on a ballot initiative petition cannot be deemed invalid because the person signing the petition used initials instead of their full first or middle name, or both.^[7]

• Assembly Bill 1451 (Vetoed): Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) vetoed the bill on October 7, 2019. The legislation was designed to do the following:^[8]

• require that a minimum of 10% of the signatures needed for an initiative or referendum petition be collected by unpaid volunteer circulators;
• prohibit paying circulators based on the number of signatures they collected and making this practice a misdemeanor;
• require petitions to include information indicating whether the circulator collecting the signatures was a paid worker or volunteer; and
• increase the number of days that elections officials have to verify signatures, among other changes.

• Senate Bill 47: The legislation required ballot measure committees to create an Official Top Funders sheet to provide when requested from potential petition signers. Under SB 47, the sheet must list the three largest contributors to the committee. The bill also allowed committees to list three endorsers on their petitions.^[9]

• Senate Bill 151: The legislation allowed an elected official subject to a recall election to display a party preference on the ballot.^[10]

• Senate Bill 268 (Vetoed): Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) vetoed the bill on October 13, 2019. The legislation would have allowed sponsors of a local ballot measure to decide how to show the information about taxes or bonds on the ballot label. They would have had two options: (1) include the estimated amount of money to be raised each year, along with the tax rate and how long the tax will last, or (2) add the phrase "See voter guide for tax rate information."^[11]

• Senate Bill 359: The legislation allowed a municipal veto referendum petition to include a summary of the referendum instead of having to include the entire text of the ordinance or the specific part of the ordinance that is being petitioned. Under SB 359, the city attorney is responsible for writing summaries, which must be less than 5,000 words and true and impartial.^[12]

• Senate Bill 681: The legislation allowed proponents of local initiatives to withdraw their measures up to 88 days before the election.^[13]

Florida[edit]

• House Bill 5: The legislation made several changes to the laws governing the initiative process in Florida, including:^[14]

• require paid petition circulators to register with the state and provide an affidavit;
• prohibit paying petition circulators based on the number of signatures gathered and making a violation a misdemeanor offense;
• require petition forms to be submitted to elections officials within 30 days of being signed or receive a fine of $50 per petition sheet;
• require ballot language for a statewide initiative to contain an estimate of the impact on the state and local economy and effect on the state budget;
• require a two-thirds (66.67%) vote at a general election to approve local discretionary sales taxes.

Idaho[edit]

• House Bill 296 (Vetoed): Gov. Brad Little (R) vetoed HB 296 on April 9, 2019. The legislation made changes to Senate Bill 1159, which was also vetoed, to make the revised distribution requirement 24 legislative districts, rather than 32, and allow nine months for signature gathering, rather than 180 days.^[15]

• Senate Bill 1159 (Vetoed): Gov. Brad Little (R) vetoed SB 1159 on April 5, 2019. The legislation would have made changes to the laws governing the initiative process in Idaho, including:^[16]

• increasing the signature requirement for initiatives and veto referendums from 6% to 10% of registered voters as of the last general election;
• increasing the state's distribution requirement to require initiative and referendum petitioners to meet the 10% requirement in 32 legislative districts, rather than 6% in 18 legislative districts;
• reducing the amount of time allowed for signature gathering from 18 months to 180 days;
• enacting a single-subject rule for initiatives; and
• requiring a fiscal impact statement for each initiative certified for the ballot.

Indiana[edit]

• Senate Bill 127: The legislation allowed a school board to adopt a resolution to place a school safety referendum tax levy on the ballot.^[17]

Iowa[edit]

• House File 764: The legislation assigned the responsibility of publishing proposed constitutional amendments, which were passed in one legislative session and required for consideration in the next session, to the Iowa State Legislature. Previously, the secretary of state was required to publish proposed amendments passed in one legislative session.^[18]

Maine[edit]

• Legislative Document 53: The legislation required the use of letters of the alphabet instead of numbers to list municipal initiative and referendum questions on ballots.^[19]

• Legislative Document 499: The legislation required signature gatherers to provide certain personal information and proof of voter registration with the state and file an affidavit that says the circulator has an understanding of the initiative process. The legislation also required organizations or individuals paying circulators to provide a list of paid circulators and details on payment methods, including whether pay-per-signature is utilized.^[20]

• Legislative Document 534: The legislation provided that the secretary of state's office must write ballot questions "as simply as is possible," provide explanations of the effects of "yes" and "no" votes, and eliminated the rule that required a "yes" vote on a veto referendum to mean repealing the targeted legislation.^[21]

• Legislative Document 1209: The legislation required that an indirect initiated state statute that received enough valid signatures to receive a public hearing before a joint standing committee of the Legislature or a special legislative committee of the Legislative Council.^[22]

• Legislative Document 1437 (Question 2): Voters approved the constitutional amendment on November 5, 2019. The constitutional amendment allowed for persons with physical disabilities that prevent them from signing their own names to use an alternative signature to sign petitions for citizen-initiated ballot measures.^[23]

Maryland[edit]

• Senate Bill 1004: The legislation changed deadlines and dates for officials to prepare ballot measure and candidate election information. Under SB 1004, the secretary of state must prepare language for ballot measures no later than 95 days before the election, rather than the third Monday in August, among other changes.^[24]

Montana[edit]

• House Bill 244 (C-46): Voters approved the constitutional amendment, which amended constitutional language to match the existing signature distribution requirements for initiated constitutional amendments based on judicial rulings and opinions.^[25]

• House Bill 245 (C-47): Voters approved the constitutional amendment, which amended constitutional language to match the existing signature distribution requirements for initiated state statutes and veto referendums based on judicial rulings and opinions.^[26]

• Senate Bill 231: The legislation required that the legislative sponsor of a legislatively referred state statute or legislatively referred constitutional amendment be appointed to the committee to draft the argument in favor of the measure unless the sponsor is unable to or declines.^[27]

Nevada[edit]

• Senate Bill 450: The legislation made several changes to recall election policies in Nevada, including establishing a limit on campaign contributions for candidates in recall elections; revising procedures for removing a signature from a recall petition; changing the deadline for filing a legal challenge to a recall petition; enacting civil and criminal penalties for violations of recall election provisions; and other changes.^[28]

New Mexico[edit]

• House Bill 407: The legislation made several changes to local election policies in New Mexico, including how ballot measures are ordered on a ballot.^[29]

North Dakota[edit]

• House Bill 1035: The legislation required that fiscal impact statements for initiatives be included on the ballot.^[30]

• House Bill 1036: The legislation required that fiscal impact statements for referred legislative measures and initiatives be included on the ballot.^[31]

• House Bill 1037: The legislation changed the campaign finance requirements for donors to ballot measure campaigns. HB 1037 applied the requirements for out-of-state contributors to all contributors regardless of origin.^[32]

• House Bill 1201: The legislation extends the restriction on recall elections from being prohibited in the same year as the next regularly scheduled election for an office to within one year of the upcoming regularly scheduled election for an office.^[33]

• Senate Concurrent Resolution 4001 (Constitutional Measure 2): Voters rejected the constitutional amendment on November 3, 2020. The constitutional amendment would have required voter-approved initiated constitutional amendments to also receive approval from the Legislature or be placed on the ballot for a second election requiring voter approval.^[34]

Ohio[edit]

• House Concurrent Resolution 7: The concurrent resolution gave the Senate President and House Speaker the power to designate persons for ballot measure arguments during the election cycle, including legislators to prepare arguments for and against constitutional amendments; persons to prepare arguments for a veto referendum; and persons to prepare arguments against citizen-initiated constitutional amendments.^[35]

Oklahoma[edit]

• House Bill 2119: As of 2019, the signature requirement for local initiatives and referendums in Oklahoma was equal to at least 25% of the total number of votes cast at the preceding general municipal election. HB 2119 clarified that this number is from the most recent preceding general municipal election and defined total number of votes cast as the sum of votes for the highest-ranking at-large municipal office on the ballot or, when such an office isn't on the ballot, the sum of votes cast for or against the municipal ballot measure receiving the largest total number of votes on a ballot.^[36]

Oregon[edit]

• House Bill 3348: The legislation required the financial estimate statement, including in the voter pamphlet, to state when a ballot measure spends funds without a designated funding source and is expected to have a financial impact on public expenditures exceeding $100,000.^[37]

• Senate Bill 731: The legislation allowed recognized student governments at community colleges or public universities to express support or opposition regarding a specific ballot measure.^[38]

• Senate Bill 761: The legislation allowed for people to print an official electronic petition, sign the petition, and deliver the petition to sponsors, provided that only the voter who prints an electronically available petition can sign that particular form.^[39]

South Dakota[edit]

• House Bill 1093: The legislation provided that the public can have access to a random sample of signed petitions for ballot initiatives within 30 days of a request. HB 1093 also provided that when a person challenges petition signatures from a random sample, the challenged percentage applies to the total batch of signatures.^[40]

• House Bill 1094: In SD Voice v. Noem, the U.S. District Court for South Dakota ruled that HB 1094 was unconstitutional. The legislation was designed to make several changes to the laws governing petition circulators, including:

• requiring paid signature gatherers to register with the state, obtain a circulator identification number, and provide certain information, such as the circulator's physical address, email address, phone number, occupation, and driver's license and voter registration state;
• creating a $20 registration fee for paid petition circulators; and
• requiring signature gatherers to wear a badge that identifies the committee and ballot measure for which they are collecting signatures, as well as their paid or volunteer status, among other changes.

• Senate Bill 92: The legislation provided that signature calculation for municipal initiatives and referendums is based on the number of registered voters in that jurisdiction on the second Tuesday in January in the year the petition was filed. SB 92 also provided that when a petition is filed before the second Tuesday in January, the prior year's calculation is applied.^[41]

Tennessee[edit]

• Senate Bill 557: The legislation allowed property owners, in addition to residents, to participate in referendum elections related to annexation. Previously, only residents of the jurisdiction were allowed to vote in annexation referendum elections.^[42]

Texas[edit]

• Senate Bill 30: The legislation required school districts to present separate ballot propositions to authorize bonds for various types of construction projects, such as a stadium, a natatorium, a recreational area, a performing arts areas, and housing for teachers. Additionally, bonds for technology equipment (excluding school security equipment) must be stated in a separate proposition. SB 30 required a plain language description of the single specific purpose for which the bonds were to be authorized.^[43]

Utah[edit]

• House Bill 119: The legislation changed several provisions governing local ballot measures in Utah, including:^[44]

• requiring information pamphlets for local initiatives and referendums, including arguments for and against the measures;
• changing signature requirements for local initiatives and referendums depending on the county or metro township class or population;
• changing rules for signature verification and ballot measure qualification; and
• changing provisions related to the appeals made during the signature verification process.

• House Bill 133: The legislation modified the effective dates for voter-approved ballot initiatives. HB 133 provided that the effective date is at 60 days following the last day of the legislative session immediately after the election in which the initiative is approved, except for certain tax-related initiatives. Under HB 133, a tax increase initiative goes into effect on January 1 of the year following the next general legislative session after the election. A tax decrease goes into effect five days after the governor issues the proclamation of election results for the initiative. HB 133 also allowed courts, in addition to the Utah Supreme Court, to consider challenges regarding conflicts between two measures.^[45]

• House Bill 145: The legislation changed several provisions regarding initiative petitions, including:^[46]

• requiring county clerks to display the names of registered voters who sign initiative and referendum petitions on the county website;
• requiring individual petition sheet packets to be submitted no later than 30 days for initiatives or 14 days for veto referendums after the date of the first signature on the packet, thus requiring signatures to be submitted as they're collected instead of at once before the deadline;
• changing the deadline and process for signature removal requests;
• creating criminal penalties for knowingly placing or verifying a false signature date on an initiative signature packet a crime; and
• creating criminal penalties for paying a person to sign a petition or removing a person's signature from a petition.

• House Bill 195: The legislation changed the signature requirements for ballot initiatives and other laws governing ballot initiatives, including:^[47]

• changing the signature requirement for initiatives and referendums from 10 percent (5 percent for indirect initiatives) of votes cast at the last presidential election to 8 percent (4 percent for indirect initiatives) of active voters as of January 1 of even-numbered years;
• changing the signature submission deadline and the deadline for signature removal requests from April 15 to February 15 before the election; and
• changing the deadline for initiatives to be certified for the ballot from June 1 to April 15, among other changes.

• Senate Bill 151: The legislation enacted new requirements for initiative fiscal impact statements and information:^[48]

• requiring initiative petitions to contain information on funding sources, including percentages, for the costs associated with the proposed law;
• requiring the Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst, rather than the Governor's Office of Management and Budget, to prepare the fiscal impact statement for an initiative;
• requiring fiscal impact statements to be displayed at required public hearings on initiatives; and
• allowing courts, in addition to the Utah Supreme Court, to consider challenges regarding ballot titles.

Legislation in 2019[edit]

The following map shows the number of bills related to ballot measures or recall elections in each state. Click on a state to see a list of bills in that state. Click Back in the upper left-hand corner to return to the map.

Rulings in 2019[edit]

Colorado[edit]

See also: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, "Evenwel v. Abbott," August 20, 2019

The U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Colorado Amendment 71, including the amendment's signature distribution requirement based on the number of registered voters in legislative districts, did not violate the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. Plaintiffs argued that legislative districts were based on equal population but the number of registered voters varied between districts, thus violating the one person, one vote principle.^[49]

The 10th Circuit, in a 2-1 opinion, cited the U.S. Supreme Court's Evenwel v. Abbott (2016), in which the Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause does not require "states to equalize the number of voters in each legislative district." Judge Michael Murphy wrote, "In the direct democracy context, voters are able to directly advance the interests of non-voting members of their families and communities when they decide whether to support a citizen initiative. Although citizens, unlike elected representatives, are not 'subject to requests and suggestions' from constituents, their vote on citizen initiative petitions can be influenced by private discussions with non-voting friends, family, and neighbors. In this way, voting-eligible citizens assume a role similar to that of elected representatives when those voters engage in the initiative process."^[49]

Judge Mary Briscoe dissented, writing that the Court misapplied Evenwel. "When an individual casts a vote or provides a signature, he or she is representing only himself or herself and no one else. ... In the case at hand, for example, if a single signator is deemed to represent his or her senate district, then why require any additional signatures in order to assure that a proposed ballot measure carries sufficient support to be placed on the ballot? ... the case at hand does not implicate the principle of representational equality and is thus distinguishable from "Evenwel".^[49]

Michigan[edit]

League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Secretary of State[edit]

See also: Michigan Supreme Court, League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Secretary of State, January 24, 2022

On January 24, 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the state's signature distribution requirement was unconstitutional. Justice Megan Cavanagh said, "It would run directly contrary to the clear intention that nothing more than a minimum number of signatures from the statewide population is necessary to propose changes to Michigan’s laws." The court also overturned a requirement that paid signature gatherers register with the state.^{[50] [51]}

In 2018, the Michigan State Legislature passed a bill enacting a distribution requirement for citizen initiatives in Michigan. The legislation—House Bill 6595—also enacted certain requirements for petition circulators. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) released an opinion stating that the requirement was unconstitutional in May 2019. In June 2019, the Michigan House and Senate filed lawsuits against Nessel. The League of Women Voters in Michigan also filed a lawsuit against provisions of HB 6595. In September 2019, Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens decided that the House and Senate lacked standing to challenge Nessel. The ruling was appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals.

On January 27, 2020, the Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 decision, ruled that the state constitution's signature requirements for citizen-initiated ballot measures are self-executing. The Legislature, according to the court, cannot "impose additional obligations on a self-executing constitutional provision." The Court of Appeals ruled that the distribution requirement was an "unreasonable restraint on the constitutional right of the people to initiate laws." The ruling also found several other petition circulator requirements in HB 6595 unconstitutional.^[52] The decision was appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Utah[edit]

Grant et al. v. Herbert et al.[edit]

Utah Supreme Court, Grant et al. v. Herbert et al., August 6, 2019

On August 6, 2019, the Utah Supreme Court ruled that the Legislature could repeal or amend Proposition 2, a citizen-initiated measure to legalize medical marijuana. The Supreme Court stated that the governor calling a special session, including before the initiative was enacted, was not equivalent to the governor vetoing the initiative.^[53]

Voters approved Proposition 2 on November 6, 2018. Gov. Gary Herbert called a special legislative session to amend the initiative before its effective date. On December 3, 2018, the Legislature passed House Bill 3001, which repealed and replaced Proposition 2.^[54]

Petitioners sued the state in response to the changes, arguing that Gov. Herbert exceeded his power to call a special session without exigent circumstances and effectively vetoed Proposition 2. Statute prohibited the governor from vetoing a voter-approved ballot initiative. The Supreme Court ruled that "the Governor did not veto Proposition 2. The Governor’s actions were limited to issuing a proclamation to convene a special session of the legislature. The Utah Constitution explicitly grants him this power."^[53]

Evaluating the effect of legislative changes on ballot initiatives[edit]

See also: Difficulty analysis of changes to laws governing ballot measures

Ballotpedia has identified the following legislative changes as making the ballot initiative process more difficult in a given state.

The legislative changes examined in this analysis are based on general concepts found in proposed and approved bills concerning ballot measures. These changes do not always make the initiative process harder or easier to use. The effect of these changes depends on the specific details of each change, how the various policies in a state interact, and the particular ballot initiatives being considered.

There are often competing ideas about a bill's intent. While a bill's sponsor could view a change as intended to increase rural representation or reduce out-of-state organizations from being involved in state politics, a bill's opponent could view a change as undermining the ballot initiative process or designed to impede certain initiative campaigns. Ballotpedia does not endorse a position or argument regarding the policies listed below.

The following list was designed to evaluate policies based on their likelihood of making signature drives or campaigns more resource-intensive, including requiring more spending or travel; increasing the likelihood of signatures being rejected; limiting the potential pool of signature gatherers; limiting the potential pool of campaign donors; making an initiative or petition more susceptible to litigation; and decreasing the odds of a measure being approved due to specific election requirements.

Disclosure of information and other changes[edit]

The disclosure of campaign finance or other information, such as fiscal impact statements, can have variable effects on ballot initiative campaigns depending on how voters respond to the disclosed information. Other changes that could affect initiative outcomes are the criminalization of fraudulent signature-gathering and election date requirements. These types of policies are not included in this analysis on legislative changes that make the ballot initiative process more difficult due to their variable effects.

See also[edit]

• Changes to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2023 to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2022 to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2021 to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2020 to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2018 to laws governing ballot measures

Footnotes[edit]