Single-subject rule for ballot initiatives
From Ballotpedia
(Redirected from Single-subject rule)
A single-subject rule is a state law that requires ballot initiatives to address a single subject, topic, or issue. There are 26 states that provide for at least one type of statewide citizen-initiated measure. Of those 26 states, 16 have single-subject rules.
There is a similar rule called the separate-vote requirement, which applies to constitutional amendments, whether citizen-initiated or legislative, in at least six states. The separate-vote requirement prohibits constitutional amendments from changing more than one article or section of the state constitution.
HIGHLIGHTS
Requirements by state
Sixteen (16) states provide for at least one type of statewide citizen-initiated measure and have a single-subject rule. Ten (10) states that provide for an initiative process do not have a single-subject rule. The following map provides information on single-subject rules for citizen-initiated measures.
States with signature distribution requirements
Thirteen state constitutions require initiatives to abide by a single-subject rule. Of the 13, four states also have state laws requiring a single-subject for initiatives. Three states require a single-subject solely through state law. The following table outlines the single-subject requirements for citizen-initiated ballot measures by state:
| Comparison of single-subject requirements | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| State | Constitutional language | Statutory language | Legal citation |
| Alaska | N/A | "The proposed bill shall be in the following form: (1) the bill shall be confined to one subject..." | Alaska Statutes, Sec. 15.45.040 |
| Arizona | "Every initiative measure shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith..." | N/A | Arizona Constitution, Article 4, Part 1, Section 1 |
| California | "An initiative measure embracing more than one subject may not be submitted to the electors or have any effect." | N/A | California Constitution, Article II, Section 8 (d) |
| Colorado | "No measure shall be proposed by petition containing more than one subject..." | N/A | Colorado Constitution, Article V, Section 1 |
| Florida | "The power to propose the revision or amendment of any portion or portions of this constitution by initiative is reserved to the people, provided that, any such revision or amendment, except for those limiting the power of government to raise revenue, shall embrace but one subject and matter directly connected therewith." | N/A | Florida Constitution, Article XI, Section 3 |
| Idaho | "Every act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith..." | "An initiative petition shall embrace only one (1) subject and matters properly connected with it." | Idaho Constitution, Article III, Section 16 and Idaho Statutes, Title 34, Chapter 18 |
| Missouri | "Petitions for constitutional amendments shall not contain more than one amended and revised article of this constitution, or one new article which shall not contain more than one subject and matters properly connected therewith, ... Petitions for laws shall contain not more than one subject which shall be expressed clearly in the title..." | N/A | Missouri Constitution, Article III, Section 50 |
| Nebraska | "The constitutional limitations as to the scope and subject matter of statutes enacted by the Legislature shall apply to those enacted by the initiative. Initiative measures shall contain only one subject." | N/A | Nebraska Constitution, Article III, Section 2 |
| Nevada | N/A | A petition for initiative or referendum embraces but one subject and matters necessarily connected therewith and pertaining thereto, if the parts of the proposed initiative or referendum are functionally related and germane to each other in a way that provides sufficient notice of the general subject of, and of the interests likely to be affected by, the proposed initiative or referendum." | Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 295, Section 009 |
| Ohio | N/A | "Only one proposal of law or constitutional amendment to be proposed by initiative petition shall be contained in an initiative petition to enable the voters to vote on that proposal separately." | Ohio Revised Code, Title XXXV, Chapter 3519.01(A) |
| Oklahoma | "Every act of the Legislature shall embrace but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title..." "No proposal for the amendment or alteration of this Constitution which is submitted to the voters shall embrace more than one general subject and the voters shall vote separately for or against each proposal submitted; provided, however, that in the submission of proposals for the amendment of this Constitution by articles, which embrace one general subject, each proposed article shall be deemed a single proposal or proposition." |
N/A | Oklahoma Constitution, Article V, Section 57 and Article XXIV, Section 1 |
| Oregon | "A proposed law or amendment to the Constitution shall embrace one subject only and matters properly connected therewith." "A proposed revision may deal with more than one subject and shall be voted upon as one question." |
N/A | Oregon Constitution, Article IV, Section 1 (1d) and Article XVII, Section 1 |
| South Dakota | "No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title." "A proposed amendment may amend one or more articles and related subject matter in other articles as necessary to accomplish the objectives of the amendment, however no proposed amendment may embrace more than one subject." |
"No initiated measure may embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in the title." | South Dakota Constitution, Article III, Section 1 and Article XXIII, Sections 1-3 and South Dakota Codified Laws, Title 2, Chapter 1 and Title 12, Chapter 13 |
| Utah | "[N]o bill shall be passed containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title." | "The lieutenant governor shall reject an initiative application or an initiative application addendum filed under Subsection 20A-7-204.1(6) and not issue signature sheets if: (a) the proposed law: ... contains more than one subject." | Utah Constitution, Article VI, Section 22 and Utah Code, Title 20A, Chapter 7, Section 202(5)(d) |
| Washington | "No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title."[1] | N/A | Washington Constitution, Article II, Section 19 |
| Wyoming | "No bill, except general appropriation bills and bills for the codification and general revision of the laws, shall be passed containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title..." | "In an initiative, the proposed bill shall be confined to one (1) subject..." | Wyoming Constitution, Article 3, Section 24 and Wyoming Statutes, Title 22, Chapter 24, Section 304 |
Legislation
The following is a list of bills passed, beginning in 2016, related to single-subject rules for ballot initiatives.
2023
- Senate Concurrent Resolution 4013 (Constitutional Measure 2): The constitutional amendment required voter approval on November 5, 2024. The constitutional amendment was designed to establish a single-subject rule for initiatives; increase the signature requirement for initiated constitutional amendments from 4% to 5% of the state's population; and require voters to approve initiated constitutional amendments at two elections.[2]
- South Dakota House Bill 1140: The legislation required that the secretary of state to determine if a legislatively referred constitutional amendment, like an initiated constitutional amendment, complies with the single-subject rule and is not a constitutional revision. Under HB 1140, the secretary of state must not certify constitutional amendments that contain more than one subject or are revisions.[3]
2021
- South DakotaSenate 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.[4]
2020
- Florida Senate Bill 1794: The legislation made several changes to the laws governing the initiative process in Florida including requiring the Florida Supreme Court to review whether a proposed amendment is "facially invalid under the United States Constitution" in addition to existing requirements for reviewing the ballot title and reviewing the initiative for compliance with the state's single-subject rule.[5]
- Idaho House Bill 548: The bill required that initiatives be limited to a single subject; required that initiative petitions include a statement informing signers that they have the option to remove their signatures from the petition; required individuals or entities who pay signature gatherers to report such activity to the secretary of state; and set the earliest and default effective date for ballot initiatives as July 1 of the year following the election.[6]
2019
- Idaho 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 enacting a single-subject rule for initiatives.[7]
2018
- South Dakota House Bill 1007: The legislation established a single-subject rule for citizen-initiated state statutes.[8]
- South Dakota House Joint Resolution 1006 (Constitutional Amendment Z): Voters approved the constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018. Constitutional Amendment Z created a single-subject rule for constitutional amendments, whether initiated or referred. [9]
Lawsuits
The following is a selection of case law and litigation about single-subject rules for ballot initiatives.
Whether single-subject rules for legislation apply to ballot initiatives
- Montana Association of Counties (MACo) v. Montana (2017): The Montana Supreme Court struck down Constitutional Initiative 116 (2016) in a 5-2 decision that found the initiative violated the state constitution's separate-vote requirement. The court also ruled that the single-subject rule found in Article V, Section 11 of the constitution that says "each bill, except [...], shall contain only one subject, clearly expressed in its title" applies to bills from the legislature and not to constitutional amendments.[10]
- Fritz v. Gorton (1974): The Washington Supreme Court upheld Washington Initiative 276 (1972), which proposed campaign finance and lobbyists regulations. The court held that the single-subject rule in the Washington Constitution also applies to initiatives and found that "each of the subtopics of Initiative 276 bears a close interrelationship to the dominant intendment of the measure."[11]
Whether the application of a single-subject rule violates a person's rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments
- Campbell v. Buckley (2000): The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that the application of a single-subject rule did not violate a person's right to “to speech, petitioning, political association, due process and voting” under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The court applying the balancing test to Colorado's single-subject rule said, "While compliance with the single subject requirement may be difficult for some who wish to offer ballot initiatives, and may to some extent limit their goal of unfettered participation in the electoral and legislative process, we are satisfied that the state's reasons for its procedures are sufficiently weighty to justify the procedures."
Single-subject rules v. separate vote requirements
- Marshall v. State ex rel. Coone (1999): The Montana Supreme Court held that this provision of the Montana Constitution imposes a narrower requirement than a single-subject rule. The constitutional provision states, "If more than one amendment is submitted at the same election, each shall be so prepared and distinguished that it can be voted upon separately."[12]
Arguments
The following is a list of claims and arguments about single-subject rules for citizen-initiated ballot measures.
Support
Below is a selection of claims and arguments that have been made in support of single-subject rules for ballot initiatives.
Claim: Single-subject rules allow voters to express a clear intent on a single issue
- Florida Supreme Court Justice Ben Overton writing the majority opinion in Fine v. Firestone (1984): "This requirement avoids voters having to accept part of an initiative proposal which they oppose in order to obtain a change in the constitution which they support. An initiative proposal with multiple subjects, in which the public has had no representative interest in drafting, places voters with different views on the subjects contained in the proposal in the position of having to choose which subject they feel most strongly about."[13]
Claim: Initiatives should be held to the same standard as legislation
- Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy Action, in 2022 in support of Arizona Proposition 129, said, "Arizona laws passed by legislators are limited to one subject; citizen initiatives should be also. This measure simply holds all laws to that same standard. Ballot measures passed by voters are bound by the Voter Protection Act, meaning the Legislature cannot make corrections or adjustments except to further the intent of the measure. That’s why it is so important to get ballot measures right."[14]
Oppose
Below is a selection of claims and arguments that have been made in opposition to single-subject rules for ballot initiatives.
Claim: Single-subject rules limit a citizen's right to place a ballot initiative on the ballot
- Pinny Sheoran, president of the League of Women Voters of Arizona, who opposed Arizona Proposition 129, said, "A vote for this measure will further limit citizens’ ability to enact laws that address issues and problems that the Legislature has failed to address and open the door to legal challenges regarding what qualifies as a single subject. Citizens could be forced to propose multiple, piecemeal initiatives to provide effective solutions. Legislators are funded by taxpayer money to enact legislation. Citizens must individually bear the high cost in both money and expenditure of time to get a measure on the ballot. The additional barriers in this proposed amendment will only diminish the people’s constitutional right to make laws."[14]
Claim: Judges apply single-subject rules subjectively and without any specific criteria
- Kevin Frazier, former clerk for the Montana Supreme Court and assistant professor at St. Thomas University Benjamin L. Crump College of Law, said, "Whether a similar amendment would survive a single-subject challenge in another court is unclear. There’s a lack of uniformity in the tests applied by state courts. For instance, the Utah Supreme Court acknowledged that '[t]here is no constitutional restriction as to the scope or magnitude of the single subject of a legislative act.' Briffault’s review of the tests applied by different state supreme courts revealed a number of different tests — such as whether the parts of a single bill are 'rationally related,' share a 'unifying principle,' or 'relate, directly or indirectly, to the same general subject and have a mutual connection.'"[15]
Single-subject rule ballot measures
Ballotpedia tracked five ballot measures that adopted single-subject rules in Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, and South Dakota. North Dakota voters decided on a ballot measure to adopt a single-subject rule on November 5, 2024.
| State | Year | Type | Title | Result | Yes Votes | No Votes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ND | 2024 | Constitutional Measure 2 |
|
149,944 (44%) |
194,152 (56%) |
|
| AZ | 2022 | Proposition 129 |
|
1,311,046 (55%) |
1,062,533 (45%) |
|
| SD | 2018 | Amendment Z |
|
195,790 (62%) |
117,947 (38%) |
|
| NE | 1998 | Amendment 5A |
|
193,543 (72%) |
76,707 (28%) |
|
| NE | 1998 | Amendment 5B |
|
174,016 (68%) |
83,780 (32%) |
|
| CO | 1994 | Referendum A |
|
687,527 (66%) |
359,298 (34%) |
See also
- Separate-vote requirement
- Changes in 2024 to laws governing ballot measures
- Changes in 2023 to laws governing ballot measures
Footnotes
- ↑ Case law has applied this standard to ballot initiatives.
- ↑ North Dakota State Legislature, "SCR 4013," accessed February 22, 2023
- ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "House Bill 1140," accessed June 29, 2023
- ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "Senate Bill 86," accessed June 21, 2023
- ↑ Florida State Senate, "Senate Bill 1794," accessed June 22, 2023
- ↑ Idaho State Legislature, "House Bill 548," accessed June 22, 2023
- ↑ Idaho State Legislature, "Senate Bill 1159," accessed June 29, 2023
- ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "House Bill 1007," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "House Joint Resolution 1006," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ Court Listener, MACo v. Montana, accessed September 14, 2023
- ↑ Google Scholar, "Fritz v. Gorton, accessed September 19, 2023
- ↑ Google Scholar, Marshall v. State ex rel. Coone, accessed September 14, 2023
- ↑ Casetext, Fine v. Firestone, accessed September 14, 2023
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 Arizona Secretary of State, "Voter pamphlet," accessed September 14, 2023
- ↑ Brennan Center, "How Much Is Too Much in a Bill or Amendment?" May 5, 2023