Changes in 2018 to laws governing ballot measures

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Laws governing ballot measures
BallotLaw final.png
State
• Laws governing state ballot measures
• Laws governing state initiative processes
• Laws governing state recall processes
• Changes to ballot measure law in 2018
• List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2018
Local
• Laws governing local ballot measures
Learn about Ballotpedia's election legislation tracker.
2019 »
« 2017

Ballotpedia tracked 250 legislative proposals concerning ballot measures, initiatives, veto referendums, referrals, local ballot measures, and recall elections in 39 states during 2018 legislative sessions.

Of the 250 introduced bills, state legislatures passed 42 bills (16.8%). Governors vetoed three of the bills, meaning 39 were enacted into law.

On this page, you will find:

Legislation approved in 2018

Are you aware of a bill related to ballot measures or recall that was enacted during a 2018 legislative session that is not listed here, email us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

By legislative vote

State Bill D Support (%) R Support (%) Margin
Arizona HB 2121 (Vetoed) 0.0% 100.0% R+100.0%
North Carolina HB 3 1.9% 100.0% R+98.1%
Idaho HB 568 0.0% 97.7% R+97.7%
South Dakota HJR 1006 0.0% 96.6% R+96.6%
South Dakota SJR 1 0.0% 95.3% R+95.3%
Michigan HB 6595 0.0% 94.3% R+94.3%
South Dakota SB 9 6.7% 98.9% R+92.2%
South Dakota HB 1007 0.0% 89.6% R+89.6%
South Dakota HB 1177 0.0% 86.0% R+86.0%
South Dakota HB 1196 0.0% 72.1% R+72.1%
Arizona HB 2648 35.1% 100.0% R+64.9%
Idaho HB 620 43.8% 100.0% R+56.3%
South Dakota HB 1006 42.9% 94.0% R+51.2%
South Dakota SB 128 57.1% 97.6% R+40.5%
Oklahoma HB 2827 58.6% 97.8% R+39.2%
Utah SB 122 37.5% 76.6% R+39.1%
New Mexico HB 49 66.1% 100.0% R+33.9%
South Dakota HB 1304 66.7% 98.9% R+32.2%
Michigan HB 6107 80.0% 98.9% R+18.9%
South Dakota SB 13 86.7% 100.0% R+13.3%
Louisiana HB 54 90.7% 100.0% R+9.3%
South Dakota SB 11 93.3% 97.6% R+4.3%
Michigan SB 809 96.4% 100.0% R+3.6%
Arizona HB 2115 97.1% 100.0% R+2.9%
California SB 1153 100.0% 100.0% 0.0%
Colorado HB 1145 100.0% 100.0% 0.0%
Colorado HB 1268 100.0% 100.0% 0.0%
Louisiana SB 457 100.0% 100.0% 0.0%
Nebraska LB 1000 100.0% 100.0% 0.0%
South Dakota SB 10 100.0% 100.0% 0.0%
South Dakota SB 7 100.0% 100.0% 0.0%
Maine LD 1840 94.7% 93.0% D+1.7%
Utah HB 491 100.0% 93.8% D+6.3%
South Dakota HB 1002 100.0% 93.1% D+6.9%
South Dakota HB 1004 100.0% 92.9% D+7.1%
South Dakota HB 1005 100.0% 91.7% D+8.3%
New Mexico HB 98 80.4% 68.9% D+11.5%
South Dakota SB 77 100.0% 88.0% D+12.0%
Oregon SB 1510 98.1% 14.3% D+83.8%
California AB 890 (Vetoed) 89.3% 0.0% D+89.3%
California AB 1947 (Vetoed) 96.2% 0.0% D+96.2%
Maine LD 1865 N/A[1] N/A[1] N/A[1]

By state

Arizona

  • House Bill 2115: The legislation was designed to conform requirements for school bond elections with general obligation bond elections and rename the bond measure informational report to the informational pamphlet.[2]
  • House Bill 2121 (Vetoed): Gov. Doug Ducey (R) vetoed HB 2121 on April 20, 2018. The legislation would have changed the definition of paid circulator to include circulators who receive monetary or other compensation for obtaining signatures on an initiative or referendum petition, rather than circulators who are paid based on the number of signatures collected.[3]
  • House Bill 2648: The legislation changed the definition of paid circulator to include circulators who receive monetary or other compensation for obtaining signatures on an initiative or referendum petition, rather than circulators who are paid based on the number of signatures collected.[4]

California

  • Assembly Bill 890 (Vetoed): Gov. Jerry Brown (D) vetoed AB 890 on October 15, 2018. The legislation would have prohibited citizen-initiated ballot measures to change a municipal general plan or amend zoning ordinances for the purposes of covering a land use approval for a project, changing the land use designation on parcels to more intensive land use, or allowing more intensive land uses within an existing land use designation.
  • Assembly Bill 1947 (Vetoed): Gov. Jerry Brown (D) vetoed AB 1947 on September 18, 2018. The legislation would have banned paying signature gatherers based on the number of signatures collected.[5]
  • Senate Bill 1153: The legislation allowed proponents of a local ballot initiative to withdraw the initiative up to 88 days prior to an election.[6]

Colorado

  • House Bill 1145: The legislation was designed to repeal state ballot initiative laws that courts ruled to be invalid. The repealed laws restricted payment of signature gatherers according to the number of signatures collected to 20 percent of their total compensation and required signature gatherers to be state residents.[7]
  • House Bill 1268: The legislation established a process and procedures for recall elections against special district directors.[8]

Idaho

  • House Bill 568: The legislation was designed to conform local initiative and referendum laws with a court ruling that prevented the use of citizen-initiated ballot measures regarding local zoning laws.[9]
  • House Bill 620: The legislation prohibited a government or public entity, or their employees, from using public funds, resources, or property to advocate for or against a ballot measure.[10]

Louisiana

  • House Bill 54: The legislation reduced the percentage of registered voters required for a recall petition for cities with larger populations.[11]
  • Senate Bill 457: The legislation required the chairman and vice chairman of a recall campaign to file picture IDs that contain their names and signatures and an item, such as a paycheck, that contains their names and addresses. The legislation also required recall petitions to include the signatures of the chairman and the vice chairman.[12]

Maine

  • Legislative Document 1840: The legislation required a ballot question to form a joint charter commission to draft a consolidation agreement between municipalities after enough signatures are collected.[13] Gov. Paul LePage (R) vetoed LD 1840 but the Legislature overrode his veto and enacted the bill.
  • providing that notaries or other persons authorized to administer oaths or affirmations cannot administer an oath or affirmation to a petition circulator when that person is providing other services to the initiative campaign or to promote the initiative;
  • requiring major contributors, defined as contributors who donate $100,000 or more, to file reports providing certain financial information, including the contributor's five largest sources of funds during the six months prior; and
  • requiring major contributors to file reports containing information on each contribution within five days or, during the last 13 days before the election, within 24 hours.

Michigan

  • House Bill 6107: The legislation criminalized making a false signature on a recall, initiative, or referendum petition as a misdemeanor.[15]
  • House Bill 6595: The legislation made changes to laws governing the initiative process in Michigan, including:[16]
  • creating a distribution requirement requiring that no more than 15 percent of required signatures come from a given congressional district;
  • requiring the Board of State Canvassers to officially determine whether an initiative petition is sufficient or insufficient no later than 100 days prior to the election;
  • requiring initiative petitions to include a summary of the proposal that is no longer than 100 words;
  • providing that petitions must say whether the circulator is a paid or volunteer signature gatherer; and
  • requiring paid circulators to submit a signed affidavit, among other changes.
  • Senate Bill 809: The legislation made several changes to election policies in Michigan, including requiring that a special election for a ballot measure must occur at a regular election date. The legislation also provided that a person collecting signatures for a recall petition needs to be at least 18 years old and a U.S. citizen, rather than a registered voter in the electoral district of the official being recalled, among other changes.[17]

Nebraska

  • Legislative Bill 1000: The legislation required that bonds issued under the Public Facilities Construction and Finance Act require voter approval.[18]

New Mexico

  • House Bill 49: The legislation established criteria for circulating recall petitions for elected municipal officeholders, including having a district court ruling that probable cause for the recall exists.[19]
  • House Bill 98: The legislation made several changes to election policies in New Mexico, including requiring that special elections for statewide ballot questions be conducted exclusively through mail-in voting and prohibiting non-binding advisory questions.[20]

North Carolina

  • House Bill 3: The legislation eliminated the Constitutional Amendments Publication Commission's caption for a constitutional amendment featured on the ballot. Under HB 3, the caption for a constitutional amendment is Constitutional Amendment.[21] Gov. Roy Cooper (D) vetoed HB 3 but the Legislature overrode the veto.

Oklahoma

  • House Bill 2827: The legislation required that within 10 days after the attorney general reviews and files the ballot title for an initiative or referendum, the secretary of state must file the title with the State Election Board.[22]

Oregon

  • Senate Bill 1510: The legislation made several changes to election policies in Oregon, including requiring that the final certified ballot title be included on the initiative petition signature sheets and limiting the number of signatures that could be included on a state initiative petition to 2,000.[23]

South Dakota

In 2017, a 13-member interim committee was established to investigate the state's initiative and referendum process and recommend changes for legislators to consider in 2018.[24]

  • House Bill 1002: The legislation redefined ballot question committee to also include committees spending funds to oppose ballot measures before their certification.[25]
  • House Bill 1004: The legislation gave the State Board of Elections the power to make rules related to initiative petition size and font size.[26]
  • House Bill 1005: The legislation established precise wording for the ballot language for citizen-initiated ballot measures as follows:
  • For initiated constitutional amendments: "Vote 'Yes' to adopt the amendment" and "Vote 'No' to leave the Constitution as it is."
  • For initiated state statutes: "Vote 'Yes' to adopt the initiated measure" and "Vote 'No' to leave South Dakota law as it is."
  • For veto referendums: "Vote 'Yes' to repeal the Act of the Legislature" and "Vote 'No' to allow the Act of the Legislature to become law."
  • House Bill 1006: The legislation provided that the Legislative Research Council should offer written comments regarding the substantive content of proposed ballot initiatives for the purposes of minimizing conflicts with existing laws and ensuring the effective administration of the measure.[27]
  • House Bill 1177: The legislation required initiative petition sheets to include the name, phone number, email address, and the paid or volunteer status of the signature gatherer. HB 1177 also required paid signature gatherers to include how much they're being paid.[29]
  • House Bill 1196: The legislation required a signature gatherer to provide a sworn statement attesting to residency, as well as the circulator's vehicle license state, voter registration state, current address, addresses of two previous residences, a statement expressing the circulator's intention to remain in the state following the petition effort, other information to prove residency, and other information.[30]
  • House Bill 1304: The legislation provided that the defendants in legal challenges to signature petitions or a circulator's attestation are the petition sponsors, rather than the attorney general, except in cases about the state's process of signature verification. HB 1304 also allowed challengers to reference the secretary of state’s signature verification results in court [31]
  • Senate Bill 7: The legislation prohibited ballot question committees from making contributions to statewide candidates and political parties and specified that ballot question committees can receive unlimited contributions from various entities, such as individuals and political action committees.[33]
  • Senate Bill 9: The legislation provided that the Legislative Research Council must provide a fiscal note — to be included on the ballot — when a measure would have a fiscal impact, according to the office's analysis.[34]
  • Senate Bill 10: The legislation provided that when initiated measures or constitutional amendments passed at the same election conflict with one another, the measure receiving the highest number of votes becomes enacted.
  • Senate Bill 11: The legislation required proponents of an initiative or referendum to submit the measure to the Legislative Research Council for review and comment at least six months prior to when the initiative can be circulated.[35]
  • Senate Bill 13: The legislation required the Legislative Research Council to provide the sponsor of an initiative with a fiscal note when the office determines that the proposed initiative would impact revenues, expenditures, or fiscal liability of the state.[36]
  • Senate Bill 77: The legislation provided that donors to a ballot question committee do not need to report certain information for donated goods or services.[37]
  • Senate Bill 128: The legislation required a ballot question committee to be terminated following two successive reporting periods without any activity.[38]

Utah

  • House Bill 491: The legislation provided that the Legislature can submit non-binding questions to voters by passing a joint resolution. The legislation provided that the official title for statewide non-binding advisory questions is Nonbinding Opinion Question #___, with a number assigned where the blank is.[40]
  • Senate Bill 122: The legislation provided that a local political subdivision, such as a municipality or county, cannot receive an aggregate amount of funds from a bond that exceeds the maximum principal amount stated in the bond proposition by more than 2%.[41]

Legislation in 2018

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.

Noteworthy events

North Dakota Initiated and Referred Measures Study Commission

In 2017, the North Dakota State Legislature passed a bill authorizing an interim commission, called the Initiated and Referred Measures Study Commission, to investigate the state's initiative and referendum process and propose changes. The commission convened in 2017 and 2018.Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; invalid names, e.g. too many

The interim commission considered 32 proposals and recommended four to the Legislature on May 22, 2018:[42]

  • a proposal to require a measure's fiscal impact statement to be included in the ballot language;
  • a proposal to allow initiative proponents to request assistance in drafting initiatives from the legislative council;
  • a proposal to require fiscal impact statements for veto referendums, in addition to other initiatives; and
  • a proposal to amend campaign finance reporting requirements for in-state contributors to match the existing requirements for out-of-state contributors.

The 19-member commission consisted of six members from the Legislature, Secretary of State Alvin Jaeger (R), and 11 civilian members. Judge William Neumann chaired the commission. The six legislators were Reps. Jim Kasper (R-46), Scott Louser (R-5), Vicky Steiner (R-37), and Sens. David Hogue (R-38), Gary A. Lee (R-22), Erin Oban (D-35). The 11 civilian members were Brent Bogar (Greater North Dakota Chamber), Pete Hanebutt (North Dakota Farm Bureau), Kayla Pulvermacher (North Dakota Farmers Union), Jack McDonald (North Dakota Newspaper Association), and seven gubernatorial appointees.[43]

Evaluating the effect of legislative changes on ballot initiatives

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.

Topic Policy change Example
Signature requirements Increase the number of signatures required for a citizen-initiated measure Increase a signature requirement from 5% of registered voters to 8% of registered voters
Increase the number of political subdivisions, such as legislative districts or counties, that signatures must be gathered from Increase the signature distribution requirement for citizen-initiated measures from 15 counties to 50 counties
Increase the number of signatures that must be collected from each political subdivision Increase the number of signatures needed in each legislative district from 3% of qualified voters to 6% of qualified voters
Circulation period Decrease the number of days that campaigns have to collect signatures Decrease the number of days that a campaign has to collect signatures from 180 days to 120 days
Provide that signatures expire at the end of an election cycle Provide that a campaign's signatures cannot be collected during one election cycle and submitted during the next one
Decrease the cure period length for signatures Repeal a law allowing campaigns to submit additional signatures when their initial submission falls short of the requirement
Tighten the qualifications to have a signature cure period Increase the number of valid signatures needed with an initial signature submission to be allowed to have a signature cure period
Initiative content Create or make stricter a single-subject rule Provide that a citizen-initiated ballot measure must address a single subject
Create or make stricter subject restrictions Provide that citizen-initiated ballot measures cannot address certain subjects
Prohibit initiatives that allocate funds without a funding source Provide that citizen-initiated ballot measures cannot allocate funds without providing a specific funding source, like a tax
Create or make stricter a separate-vote requirement Provide that a constitutional amendment cannot amend different parts of a state constitution
Circulator requirements Prohibit or otherwise restrict out-of-state or out-of-jurisdiction signature gatherers Prohibit volunteer or paid signature gatherers who reside outside the state
Prohibit people from collecting signatures for previous criminal convictions Prohibit persons with criminal convictions or specific criminal convictions from collecting signatures
Prohibit or otherwise restrict paying signature gatherers based on the number of signatures collected (pay-per-signature) Prohibit paying signature gatherers based on the number of signatures collected, which is an efficient method of payment for campaigns
Create circulator registration and training requirements Require potential signature gatherers to register with the state and/or take a training course
Create or make stricter circulator in-the-filed requirements Require signature gatherers to read petitions out loud; require them to give an initiative text to each signer; and require them to swear that a signer read and understood the text
Require circulators to sign an affidavit or obtain notarization for a petition sheet Require the person who collects the signatures for a given petition sheet to sign an affidavit or have the sheet notarized
Signer requirements Require that petition signers be disclosed on a government-sponsored website Require that the state or local jurisdiction publish the names of persons who signed a petition
Require additional information to be provided or disclosed for petition signers Require that additional information about petition signers be provided or disclosed, such as a signer's birth date, voter ID number, address, or other information
Petition requirements Increase the number of official proponents required to initiate a petition Increase the number of official proponents or sponsors needed from three to 10 persons to initiate a petition
Require or increase a filing fee for proposed initiatives before signature gathering can begin Increase a filing fee for proposed initiative petitions from $500 to $2,000
Reduce the number of signatures allowed per petition sheet Require that no more than a certain number, such as 25, signatures can be added to a petition sheet
Require that petition sheets must be used within specific jurisdictions and not others Provide that signatures cannot be collected from, for example, two counties using the same petition sheet
Create or make stricter requirements regarding the detailed appearance or format of petitions Require petition format to follow specific detailed guidelines and void signatures when the format is incorrect
Ballot language Provide that officials write the ballot language for a measure after signatures are collected Change when the ballot language, such as the question or title, is published, from before to after signature gathering is completed
Litigation requirements Increase the susceptibility of initiative petitions to litigation Increase the length of periods during which challenges to initiatives may be filed
Election requirements Increase the size of the vote required for a ballot measure to pass Require a supermajority vote, rather than a simple majority, for voters to pass a ballot measure
Require that a ballot measure be passed at more than one election to be approved Require that a ballot measure be approved in two sequential elections, as is the case for initiated amendments in Nevada, before the measure is enacted
Add a double majority requirement for ballot measures Require that a ballot measure receive a majority vote and that a certain percentage of registered voters cast ballots or vote on the measure
Campaign finance requirements Establish or make stricter restrictions on contributions to ballot measure campaigns Provide that donors to ballot initiative committees cannot give above a certain amount
Establish or make stricter restrictions on out-of-state donors to ballot measure campaigns Provide that potential donors who do not live or are not incorporated in the state cannot contribute to ballot initiative committees
Establish or make stricter restrictions on contributions to ballot measure campaigns during the signature-gathering phase Provide that a single donor cannot give more than a certain amount to a ballot initiative committee until the measure is certified for the ballot

Disclosure of information and other changes

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.

Topic Policy change Example
Signature withdrawal Provide that information on how to withdraw a signature from a petition Publish information on the steps that a person would need to take to get their signature removed from a petition
Impact statements Require a financial or economic impact statement for a ballot measure to be provided on a petition or on the ballot Require that a petition for an initiative include information on possible fiscal or economic effects of a proposal
Require a government spending or revenue impact statement for a ballot measure to be provided on a petition or on the ballot Require that a petition for an initiative increasing or decreasing taxes include information on how government revenue and programs could be affected
Provide that officials write the fiscal impact statement for a measure after signatures are collected Change when the fiscal impact statement is published, from before signature gathering to after circulation
Legislative hearing requirements Require legislative hearings to be held on a proposed ballot initiative Require that a legislative committee or other government body hold public hearings on a proposed ballot initiative
Require that a legislative committee or other officials vote to support or oppose a measure and have that information published Require that petitions include information on the stances of certain public officials
Criminal penalties Establish specific crimes, charges, and penalties related to the initiative process Making the willful submission of fraudulent petition signatures a specific crime with a specific punishment
Campaign finance disclosure Require that the names of some donors be included on or with petitions for potential signers to see Require that a sheet listing the top three donors to a ballot initiative committee be given to potential signers
Election requirements Provide that measures proposing supermajority requirements for other measures must pass by the same vote requirement being proposed Provide that a measure proposing a two-thirds vote on certain initiatives must itself receive a two-thirds vote
Provide that ballot measures can only be decided on certain election dates Require that ballot measures must be decided on special election dates, rather than general election dates

See also

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Note: There were no vote roll-calls recorded for this bill.
  2. ↑ Arizona State Legislature, "House Bill 2115," accessed June 28, 2023
  3. ↑ Arizona State Legislature, "House Bill 2121," accessed June 28, 2023
  4. ↑ Arizona State Legislature, "House Bill 2648," accessed June 28, 2023
  5. ↑ California State Legislature, "Assembly Bill 1947," accessed June 28, 2023
  6. ↑ California State Legislature, "Senate Bill 1153," accessed June 28, 2023
  7. ↑ Colorado State Legislature, "House Bill 1145," accessed June 28, 2023
  8. ↑ Colorado State Legislature, "House Bill 1268," accessed June 28, 2023
  9. ↑ Idaho State Legislature, "House Bill 568," accessed June 28, 2023
  10. ↑ Idaho State Legislature, "House Bill 620," accessed June 28, 2023
  11. ↑ Louisiana State Legislature, "House Bill 54," accessed June 28, 2023
  12. ↑ Louisiana State Legislature, "Senate Bill 457," accessed Senate Bill 457
  13. ↑ Maine State Legislature, "Legislative Document 1840," accessed June 28, 2023
  14. ↑ Maine State Legislature, "Legislative Document 1865," accessed June 28, 2023
  15. ↑ Michigan State Legislature, "House Bill 6107," accessed June 28, 2023
  16. ↑ Michigan State Legislature, "House Bill 6595," accessed June 28, 2023
  17. ↑ Michigan State Legislature, "Senate Bill 809," accessed June 28, 2023
  18. ↑ Nebraska State Legislature, "Legislative Bill 1000," accessed June 28, 2023
  19. ↑ New Mexico State Legislature, "House Bill 49," accessed June 28, 2023
  20. ↑ New Mexico State Legislature, "House Bill 98," accessed June 28, 2023
  21. ↑ North Carolina State Legislature, "House Bill 3," accessed June 28, 2023
  22. ↑ Oklahoma State Legislature, "House Bill 2827," accessed June 28, 2023
  23. ↑ Oregon State Legislature, "Senate Bill 1510," accessed June 28, 2023
  24. ↑ Capital Journal, "2018 legislators chip away at initiated measure process," March 28, 2018
  25. ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "House Bill 1002," accessed June 28, 2023
  26. ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "House Bill 1004," accessed June 28, 2023
  27. ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "House Bill 1006," accessed June 28, 2023
  28. ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "House Bill 1007," accessed June 28, 2023
  29. ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "House Bill 1177," accessed June 28, 2023
  30. ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "House Bill 1196," accessed June 28, 2023
  31. ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "House Bill 1304," accessed June 28, 2023
  32. ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "House Joint Resolution 1006," accessed June 28, 2023
  33. ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "Senate Bill 7," accessed June 28, 2023
  34. ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "Senate Bill 9," accessed June 28, 2023
  35. ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "Senate Bill 11," accessed June 28, 2023
  36. ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "Senate Bill 13," accessed June 28, 2023
  37. ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "Senate Bill 77," accessed June 28, 2023
  38. ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "Senate Bill 128," accessed June 28, 2023
  39. ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "Senate Joint Resolution 1," accessed June 28, 2023
  40. ↑ Utah State Legislature, "House Bill 491," accessed June 28, 2023
  41. ↑ Utah State Legislature, "Senate Bill 122," accessed June 28, 2023
  42. ↑ West Fargo Pioneer, "ND ballot measure commission wraps work, forwards four proposals," May 23, 2018
  43. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named ndcom
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Changes_in_2018_to_laws_governing_ballot_measures&oldid=9188366"