Attacks on the Initiative Process in America
2024 Attacks
Arizona:
Arizona’s ballot featured two attacks on the initiative process in 2024 — Proposition 134 & Proposition 136. Both were defeated by voters.
Proposition 134 was a legislatively referred constitutional amendment to approve a signature distribution requirement for petitions. It would have established geographic distribution requirements for initiative petitions in Arizona. Each petition would require a proportion of signatures to come from every legislative district, rather than just a total signature requirement. Signature distribution requirements make signature drives exponentially more expensive and would allow singular legislative districts to effectively block initiatives from making it on the ballot. Prop 134 was defeated 42% Yes to 58% No.
Proposition 136 was also a legislatively referred constitutional amendment. It would have allowed anyone to challenge an initiated measure or constitutional amendment after the initiative had been filed with the Arizona Secretary of State. Prop 136 would have hamstrung Arizona’s initiative process, subjecting any initiative to legal challenges before signature gathering had even begun. It was defeated 38% Yes to 62% No.
North Dakota:
Constitutional Measure 2 would have required constitutional initiatives to be passed twice (once in the Primary Election and again in the General Election) and established a single-subject requirement for initiatives. This measure was referred by the legislature and would have significantly hindered citizen’s abilities to pass ballot initiatives. Measure 2 failed by a vote of 43.59% Yes to 56.41% No
Utah:
Amendment D was a legislatively referred constitutional amendment that was not voted on in 2024. Prior to the election, League of Women Voters of Utah successfully sued the Utah Legislature to take the Amendment off the ballot because its language was misleading and inaccurate. A district judge held that the initiative language was misleading and inaccurate, and the Utah Supreme Court upheld that holding, preventing votes on Amendment D from being counted.
2023 Attacks
Ohio:
On August 8, 2023, Ohio voters defeated a measure that would have established a 60% vote requirement to approve constitutional amendments. On top of increasing the voter approval threshold to 60%, this measure also would have required citizen-initiated constitutional amendment campaigns to collect signatures from each of the state’s 88 counties (and increase from the current 44 counties required), and it would have eliminated the current cure period of 10 days for campaigns to gather additional signatures if the original submission did not have enough valid signatures.
2022 Attacks
Arkansas:
Issue 2 would have established a 60% supermajority vote requirement for constitutional amendments and ballot initiatives. This was legislatively referred and was defeated by voters on November 8, 2022.
Arizona:
Proposition 128 was defeated on November 8, 2022, but 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.
Proposition 129 was passed on November 8, 2022, establishing a single-subject requirement for ballot initiatives.
Proposition 132 also passed on November 8, 2022, establishing a 60% vote requirement for ballot measures that add or increase taxes.
South Dakota:
Constitutional Amendment C was defeated on June 7, 2022. Amendment C would have established a 60% supermajority for ballot measures that increased taxes or appropriated $10 million.