Changes in 2021 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 2021
• List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2021
Local
• Laws governing local ballot measures
Learn about Ballotpedia's election legislation tracker.
2022 » « 2020

Ballotpedia tracked 370 legislative proposals concerning ballot measures, initiatives, veto referendums, referrals, local ballot measures, and recall elections in 44 states during 2021 legislative sessions.

Of the 370 introduced bills, 36 bills (9.7%) were passed and enacted into law. Legislatures passed 40 bills, and governors vetoed four of those bills.

On this page, you will find:

• a list of bills enacted in 2021 regarding ballot measures or recall elections
• a map and list of bills proposed bills in 2021 regarding ballot measures or recall elections
• a list of court rulings that changed ballot measure processes

Legislation approved in 2021

Are you aware of a bill related to ballot measures or recall that was enacted during a 2021 legislative session that is not listed here, email us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

By legislative vote

The table below presents a list of bills passed in 2021, along with the percentages of Democrats and Republicans who voted in favor of these bills:

By state

Arizona

• House Bill 2308: The legislation enacted several changes to the laws governing recall elections, including changing the recall petition format, requiring paid circulators and out-of-state circulators to register with the state, creating a misdemeanor charge for omitting or misrepresenting information on a circulator registration application, creating a felony charge for forging a signature on a recall petition, and allowing a person to withdraw their signature from a recall petition.^[2]

• House Bill 2364: The bill required persons or organizations submitting arguments for informational election pamphlets to include a sworn statement and identifying information, including name, telephone number, and residential address. Under HB 2364, the person's residence address or telephone number does not appear in the pamphlet, but the person's name and town do appear.^[3]

• House Bill 2821: HB 2821 created a process for local governments to call a ballot measure election to change the purposes of authorized bond monies until January 1, 2025. Under HB 2821, these elections must be held on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November.^[4]

• House Concurrent Resolution 2001 (Proposition 129): Voters approved the constitutional amendment on November 8, 2022. The ballot measure required that citizen-initiated ballot measures embrace a single subject.^[5]

• Senate Bill 1105: The legislation increased the word count for initiative and referendum descriptions on petitions from 100 words to 200 words.^[6]

• Senate Bill 1497: The bill required that the official ballot and secretary of state's website include a notice about Proposition 105, which requires voter approval for substantive changes to voter-approved ballot initiatives.^[7]

• Senate Concurrent Resolution 1034 (Proposition 128): Voters rejected the constitutional amendment on November 8, 2022. The constitutional amendment would have allowed the Arizona State Legislature to amend or repeal voter-approved ballot initiatives if any portion has been declared unconstitutional or illegal by the Arizona Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court.^[8]

Arkansas

• House Joint Resolution 1005 (Issue 2): Voters rejected the constitutional amendment at the election on November 8, 2022. HJR 1005 would have required a 60% vote from voters to adopt constitutional amendments and citizen-initiated state statutes.^[9]

• Senate Bill 614: The legislation enacted several changes to signature gathering requirements. SB 614 banned paying circulators based on the number of signatures gathered and required circulators to be state residents and citizens. The legislation also expanded the criteria for disqualifying individuals from serving as signature gatherers to include certain criminal offenses, such as sexual offenses, trespassing, vandalism, and theft.^[10]

California

• Senate Bill 152: The legislation allowed the secretary of state to certify the signatures for a 2021 recall petition before, rather than after, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee provides an election cost estimate if the Legislature has appropriated funds.^[11]

• Senate Bill 660 (Vetoed): The legislation would have banned paying signature gatherers based on the number of signatures collected. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) vetoed SB 669 on October 5, 2021.^[12]

Colorado

• House Bill 1321: The legislation required certain language, including a list of public programs that could be affected, to be used for the ballot titles of ballot initiatives increasing or reducing tax revenue.^[13]

• Senate Bill 250: The legislation enacted several changes to election policies in Colorado, including requiring circulators of recall petitions to have identification badges that state either "Volunteer Circulator" or "Paid Circulator", depending on whether the signature gatherer is paid or not; providing election officials 28 days, rather than 15 business days, to verify signatures for recall petitions; and requiring that a recall election for local and school officials be held at the same time as a general election if there is one within 120 days. The legislation also repealed the signature cure period for ballot initiatives.^[14]

Florida

• Senate Bill 1194: The legislation was a transportation-related omnibus bill, which included a provision prohibiting the use of local ballot measures to restrict maritime commerce, such as cruise ships, at ports.^[15]

• Senate Bill 1890: The legislation created a $3,000 limit on campaign contributions to ballot initiative committees until the state certifies the measure for the ballot and assigns a number designation.^[16]

• On June 15, 2022, U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor issued a permanent injunction against the bill, blocking the requirement from taking effect.^[17]

• Senate Joint Resolution 204 (Amendment 2): Voters rejected the constitutional amendment on November 8, 2022. The constitutional amendment would have abolished the Florida Constitution Revision Commission, a 37-member commission that meets every 20 years to propose changes to the state's constitution and refer them to the statewide ballot for voter approval or rejection.^[18] See also: ACLU v. Lee

Idaho

• House Bill 290: The legislation prohibited electronic petition signatures, including for ballot initiatives, and stated that county clerks are responsible for verifying signatures.^[19]

• Senate Bill 1067: The legislation made several changes to election policies in Idaho, including making county clerks, rather than city clerks, responsible for receiving recall petitions, except recall petitions for state offices.^[20]

• Senate Bill 1110: The bill was designed to change the signature distribution requirement for ballot initiatives from 6% of voters in 18 (of 35) state legislative districts to 6% of voters in all 35 legislative districts.^[21]

• On August 23, 2021, the Idaho Supreme Court struck down SB 1110 as unconstitutional, writing "[the bill] would result in a scheme that squarely conflicts with the democratic ideals that form the bedrock of the constitutional republic created by the Idaho Constitution, and seriously undermines the people’s initiative and referendum powers enshrined therein."^[22]

• Senate Bill 1150 (Vetoed): The legislation was designed to prohibit initiative and referendum petitions from being circulated or signed outside the state's borders. Gov. Brad Little (R) vetoed SB 1150 on May 18, 2021.^[23]

Kentucky

• House Bill 133: The bill decreased the number of signatures for veto referendums against school district tax levies. Before, signatures equal to 10% of the votes cast in the preceding presidential election were required. Under HB 133, 5,000 signatures or signatures equal to 10% of the votes cast in the preceding election, whichever amount is less, are required.^[24]

Maine

• Legislative Document 194 (Vetoed): The legislation would have prohibited contributions and expenditures to influence ballot measures from entities with 10% or more ownership by foreign governments. On June 23, 2021, Gov. Janet Mills (D) vetoed LB 194.^[25]

• Legislative Document 1485: The bill amended state law governing political action committees and ballot question committees. LD 1485 defined ballot question committee as a person or organization that receives or expends more than $5,000 to initiate a ballot measure or influence the outcome of a ballot measure.^[26]

• Legislative Document 1536: LD 1536 provided that municipal public hearings on local citizen-initiated ballot measures must "be held in a manner that solicits and allows for a discussion on the merits of the article."^[27]

Maryland

• House Bill 738: The bill required that statewide ballot questions be posted and available in the offices of the State Board of Elections and applicable local boards for 65 days, rather than 30 days, before the election. The bill also allowed this information to be given to persons electronically.^[28]

Michigan

• Senate Bill 280 (Vetoed): The legislation would have required initiative petition signatures to be submitted 200 days, rather than 160 days, before the targeted election and required the board of state canvassers to make a determination regarding the sufficiency of the petition within 100 days.^[29]

Montana

• House Bill 651: The legislative made several changes to laws governing the initiative process, including:^[30]

• defining appropriations, which the Michigan Constitution prohibits initiatives from making, to include actions that directly or indirectly create a financial obligation or broaden the eligibility for a government program;
• requiring the relevant legislative committee or legislative council to vote on whether to support or oppose adding an initiative to the ballot and requiring the vote results to be published on the initiative petition;
• requiring the employers of paid signature gatherers to register with the state and pay a filing fee; and
• requiring the attorney general to determine whether a ballot initiative "will likely cause significant material harm to one or more business interests in Montana" and include such a statement on the initiative petition.

• Senate Bill 113: The legislation provided that statute section numbers do not count toward the 100-word limit for the ballot titles of legislatively referred ballot measures.^[31]

Nevada

• Assembly Bill 321: The legislation made several changes to election policies in Nevada, including allowing sponsors of a citizen-initiated ballot measure to withdraw their measure from the ballot up to 90 days before the election.^[32]

Oklahoma

• Senate Bill 947: The bill required that initiative sponsors include a fiscal impact statement in a proposed ballot title when a proposed initiative will have a fiscal impact on the state. Under SB 947, the fiscal impact statement also needs to include information about potential funding sources, such as federal funding, legislative appropriation, or a new tax.^[33]

Oregon

• Senate Bill 27: The legislation made several changes to election policies in Oregon, including replacing the requirement that a petitioners' residence address be listed on an initiative with the petitioners' city and state.^[34]

Pennsylvania

• House Resolution 91: The resolution established a Select Committee on Publication of Constitutional Amendments to examine, investigation, and make recommendations about the process of publishing constitutional amendments in newspapers.^[35]

South Dakota

• House Joint Resolution 5003 (Amendment C): Voters rejected the constitutional amendment on June 7, 2022. The constitutional amendment would have required a three-fifths (60%) vote for the approval of citizen-initiated ballot measures or legislative referrals that would increase taxes or fees or require the state to appropriate $10 million or more in the first five fiscal years.^[36]

• Senate Bill 77: The legislation required a 14-point font for the text of citizen-initiated ballot measures.^[37]

• Senate Bill 86: The bill required the director of the Legislative Research Council to provide a written opinion regarding whether an initiative violates the state's single-subject rule, provided that the secretary of state cannot approve an initiative for circulation if the initiative violates the single-subject rule, and established a process for challenging the determination in the state Supreme Court.^[38]

• Senate Bill 123: The legislation created a 10-day comment period for the attorney general's draft ballot title and summary.^[39]

Utah

• House Bill 23: The legislation allowed local referendums related to legislative actions taken after April 15 to appear on the ballot during the same year, rather than the following year, with agreement from the local clerk, the county clerk, and attorney for the municipality. HB 23 also made changes to the definition of land use law.^[40]

• House Bill 136: The legislation made several changes to the laws governing the initiative process in Utah, including:^[41]

• banning pay-per-signature and instead requiring payment of signature gatherers to be based on time;
• enacting a badge requirement for paid petition circulators;
• requiring signature gatherers to present the entire text of initiatives and referendums to potential signers;
• requiring initiative or referendum petition sponsors to send an email to petition signers (who add their emails to the petition sheet) that informs the signers how to remove their signatures from the petition;
• requiring that a statement about tax increases be included on initiative petitions that increase taxes; and
• revising formatting requirements for initiative petitions, among other changes.

• House Bill 211: HB 211 changed the state's distribution requirement for veto referendum petitions from 8% of voters in 15 of 29 counties to 8% of voters in 15 of the 29 state Senate districts. The legislation also:

• revised the statements that signature gatherers must sign;
• required petition sponsors to be registered voters, rather than registered voters who voted in a regular general election within the last three years;
• revised the timeline for certifying signatures; and
• required the names and voter identification numbers of those who have signed an initiative or referendum petition be posted on the attorney general's website, rather than a county's website.^[42]

Wyoming

• House Bill 148: The bill changed the filing fees for political office candidates and citizen-initiated ballot measures, including from $500 to $1,000 for an initiative or referendum.^[43]

Legislation in 2021

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 2021

The following is a list of court rulings issued in 2021 that affected the ballot measure process.

Arkansas

Safe Surgery Arkansas et al. v. Thurston & Rutledge

See also: Arkansas Supreme Court, Safe Surgery Arkansas et al. v. Thurston & Rutledge, March 11, 2021

On March 11, 2021, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that the state could not enforce Act 1219 of 2015, which required a background check for paid signature gatherers. According to the Arkansas State Police, a federal background check cannot be obtained on a paid signature gatherer. The Supreme Court upheld a lower court's finding that this made receiving a background check an impossible task and thus violated state constitutional rights to use the initiative and referendum. The Supreme Court also struck down the state background check provisions, deciding that the law was not severable. ^[44]

Florida

ACLU v. Lee

See also: U.S. District Court for Northern Florida, ACLU v. Lee, July 1, 2021

On July 1, 2021, Judge Allen Winsor issued an injunction blocking the enforcement of Florida Senate Bill 1890 (SB 1890), which established a $3,000 limit on campaign contributions to ballot initiative committees before the initiative is certified for the ballot.^[45] Attorney General Ashley B. Moody (R) did not appeal the court's decision.^[46]

Winsor wrote that the state “bears the burden of justifying restrictions on political expression by advancing at least ‘a significantly important interest’ that is ‘closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgment of associational freedoms.' [...] Binding decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court and the 5th Circuit (Court of Appeals) applied those principles and concluded that the First Amendment forbids limitations like those SB 1890 imposes."^[45]

Idaho

Reclaim Idaho v. Denney

See also: Idaho Supreme Court, Reclaim Idaho v. Denney, August 23, 2021

On August 21, 2021, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled that Senate Bill 1110 (SB 1110), passed earlier in the year, was unconstitutional. SB 1110 was designed to change the signature distribution requirement for ballot initiatives from 6% of voters in 18 (of 35) state legislative districts to 6% of voters in all 35 legislative districts.^[47]

The Idaho Supreme Court held, "Ultimately, the effect of SB 1110 is to prevent a perceived, yet unsubstantiated fear of the 'tyranny of the majority,' by replacing it with an actual 'tyranny of the minority.' This would result in a scheme that squarely conflicts with the democratic ideals that form the bedrock of the constitutional republic created by the Idaho Constitution, and seriously undermines the people's initiative and referendum powers enshrined therein." While striking down SB 1110, the Court did not address the previous distribution requirement. "In so ruling, we clarify that we have not decided the question of whether section 34-1805, with its 18 legislative district requirement, is also unconstitutional," read the opinion.^[47]

Maine

We the People PAC et al. v. Bellows

See also: U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, We the People PAC et al. v. Bellows, July 7, 2022

On July 7, 2022, the First Circuit Court of Appeals enjoined the state from enforcing a law requiring petition circulators to be registered voters, and, therefore, state residents. "[T]he burden on core political speech that the residency- and voter-registration requirements each imposes arises from the drastic limitation on the pool of out-of-state circulators that each inherently imposes," wrote the Court.^[48]

We the People PAC initiated the litigation. The PAC hired professional out-of-state petition circulators, along with in-state circulators, to collect signatures for the Citizen Requirement for Voting Initiative.

On February 16, 2021, Judge John Woodcock of the U.S. District Court for Maine enjoined the state from enforcing a law requiring petition circulators to be registered voters, and, therefore, state residents. Woodcock wrote that "the First Amendment’s free speech protections trump the state’s regulatory authority."^[49]

Secretary of State Shenna Bellows appealed the district court's ruling to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mississippi

In Re: Initiative Measure 65: Butler v. Watson

See also: Mississippi Ballot Measure 1, Initiative 65 and Alternative 65A, Medical Marijuana Amendment (2020)

On May 14, 2021, the Mississippi Supreme Court overturned Initiative 65, a citizen-initiated ballot measure to legalize medical marijuana. The court's ruling stated that the initiative petition failed to meet the state's signature distribution requirement as codified in the Mississippi Constitution, which held that signatures must be collected from five congressional districts. However, following redistricting in 2001, Mississippi had four congressional districts. According to Justice Josiah Coleman, who wrote the court's opinion, this means "that it is impossible for any petition to meet the requirements and has been impossible since congressional reapportionment in 2001." He added, "Whether with intent, by oversight, or for some other reason, the drafters of [the constitutional signature distribution requirement] wrote a ballot initiative process that cannot work in a world where Mississippi has fewer than five representatives in Congress. To work in today’s reality, it will need amending—something that lies beyond the power of the Supreme Court."^[50]

South Dakota

SD Voice v. Noem

See also: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, SD Voice v. Noem, February 17, 2023

On February 17, 2023, the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that South Dakota's signature filing deadline for ballot initiatives violated freedom of speech under the First Amendment. The filing deadline required that signatures be submitted one year before an election. "South Dakota failed to provide evidence connecting the one-year deadline to its asserted interests," wrote Judge Steven Grasz. He also wrote that while the one-year-prior filing deadline is enjoined, a federal court could not craft a new requirement.^[51]

Earlier, on August 30, 2021, a district court struck down the filing deadline but ordered a specific deadline for initiated state statutes.^[52] The Eight Circuit decided that a court could not set a new deadline as that was a legislative matter.

Cory Heidelberger, a plaintiff in the case, said, "Thus, the question on every petition sponsor‘s mind is, When are our petitions due? The answer is… We don’t know!" Heidelberger suggested the new deadline should be the second Tuesday of July, which "aligns with deadlines in Arkansas, Nebraska, and North Dakota, fellow Eighth Circuit states who require ballot measure petitions be submitted no later than early July."^[53]

On March 23, 2023, Gov. Kristi Noem (R) signed Senate Bill 113 (SB 113), which changed the signature deadline to the first Tuesday in May of a general election year.^[54]

Noteworthy events

FEC Re: Stop 1-186 to Protect Mining and Jobs

The Federal Election Commission (FEC), in a 4-2 decision, found that the federal ban on foreign political contributions concerns candidate elections, not ballot measure campaigns. Therefore, the FEC affirmed that foreign individuals, corporations, and governments could contribute to ballot measure campaigns.^[55]

The opinion resulted from a complaint filed against Sandfire Resources, which is incorporated in Australia and owns a firm in Canada. Sandfire contributed to the campaign opposing Montana I-186 in 2018.^[56]

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.

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.

See also

• Changes to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2023 to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2022 to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2020 to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2019 to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2018 to laws governing ballot measures

Footnotes