Changes in 2024 to laws governing ballot measures

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Laws governing ballot measures
BallotLaw final.png
State
• Laws governing state initiative processes
• Laws governing state recall processes
• Changes to ballot measure law in 2024
• Difficulty analysis of changes to laws governing ballot measures
Local
• Laws governing local ballot measures
Learn about Ballotpedia's election legislation tracker.
2024 »
« 2023

As of June 5, 2024, Ballotpedia had tracked 316 legislative proposals concerning ballot measures, initiatives, veto referendums, referrals, local ballot measures, and recall elections in 41 states during 2024 legislative sessions. As of June 5, 22 bills had been enacted into law.

On this page, you will find:

State ballot measures on initiative and referral processes

November 5

State Type Title Description
AZ

LRCA

Signature Distribution Requirement for Initiatives Amendment Create a signature distribution requirement for citizen-initiated ballot measures based on state legislative districts
CA

LRCA

Remove Voter Approval Requirement for Public Low-Rent Housing Projects Amendment Repeals constitutional requirement that voters approve publicly-funded housing projects at certain rent levels
CA

CICA

Two-Thirds Legislative Vote and Voter Approval for New or Increased Taxes Initiative Require new state taxes to be enacted via a two-thirds legislative vote and voter approval and require new local taxes to be enacted via a two-thirds vote of the local electorate
CA

LRCA

Vote Requirements for Initiatives Requiring Supermajority Votes Amendment Require initiatives that change vote thresholds to supermajority votes to pass by the same vote requirement as is being proposed
CO

LRCA

Initiative and Referendum Filing and Judicial Retention Filing Deadlines Amendment Change deadlines for filing initiative and referendum petition signatures and judicial retention notice deadlines to remove one week in order to allow one extra week for the secretary of state to certify ballot order and content and election officials' deadline to transmit ballots
ND

LRCA

Constitutional Measure 2 Establish a single-subject rule for initiatives; increase the signature requirement for constitutional initiatives; and require constitutional initiatives to be approved at two elections


Legislation approved in 2024

Are you aware of a bill related to ballot measures or recall that was enacted during a 2024 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 2024, along with the percentages of Democrats and Republicans who voted in favor of these bills:

Note: Bills with red-colored magins indicate a margin of 50 percentage points or more where Republican support for the legislation exceeds Democratic support. Bills with blue-colored margins indicate a margin of 50 percentage points or more where Democratic support for the legislation exceeds Republican support.

State Bill D Support (%) R Support (%) Margin Description
Florida SB 1828 30.2% 99.0% R-68.8% Required bond issues greater than $500 million to be voted on at a general election
Kentucky HB 829 100.0% 72.2% D+27.8% Changed ballot question language for petitions to overturn local governments' ordinances prohibiting marijuana businesses and increased the number of required signatures from 5 to 10% of registered voters
Kentucky SB 58 8.7% 98.0% R-89.3% Reduced the number of voters needed to form a petition committee seeking to overturn a tax levy from five to three; allowed petition sheets to include signatures of voters from more than one precinct; remove requirement for signers to include their social security number; require signers to include their birth date; changed signature requirement from 10% of votes in last presidential election to either 10% of votes in last presidential election or 5,000 registered voters, whichever is less
Idaho HB 574 0.0% 86.7% R-86.7% Required bond measure ballot questions, when including information about guaranteed state tax relief funds, to include a specific dollar amount and expiration date; prohibits a specific dollar amount of state tax relief funds from being referenced in such a ballot question unless the amount is guaranteed to the taxing district
Idaho HB 521 47.1% 90.5% R-43.4% Removed the ability for school districts to hold August elections on property tax bond questions
Idaho SB 1376 11.1% 98.8% R-87.7% Allows an Idaho Legislator to use public property and resources to communicate with the public advocating for or against an initiative or referendum
Idaho SB 1377 0.0% 93.0% R-93.0% Require paid signature gatherers to wear a badge and verbally inform signatories that they are paid signature gatherers; require petitions to include a disclosure that it is being circulated by paid signature gatherers
Nebraska LB 287 100.0% 100.0% 0.00% Allows initiative petitions to be publicized on a state website instead of in a newspaper; allows sponsors to be added or removed with unanimous written consent of original sponsors; allows a person to remove their signature by sending a signed written letter to the Secretary of State (rather than a notarized affidavit)
New Jersey SB 4209 100.0% 13.9% D+86.1% Eliminated the vote on school budgets for Type II school districts during April elections except for separate proposals to spend additional funds
Oklahoma SB 518 0.0% 95.7% R-95.7% Authorized the Secretary of State to charge a filing fee up to $750 to cover the cost of publishing the petition notice and extends the timeframe for contesting a petition (a) after it is first published and (b) after signatures are submitted from 10 days to 20 days
Oklahoma HB 1105 0.0% 98.1% R-98.1% Allows constitutional challenges to filed initiatives to be submitted within 90 days after the initiative is published (rather than within 10 days after publication) and allows challenges to signature validity or ballot language to be filed within 90 days after a notice of signed petitions is published (rather than within 10 days after publication)
Oregon HB 4026 92.3% 86.7% D+5.6% Prohibited veto referendums on local government determinations relating to urban growth boundaries
Oregon SB 1538 100.0% 59.40% D+40.6% Established a creates a joint legislative committee to prepare the ballot titles and explanatory statements for legislative referrals placed on the ballot by the legislature during the 2024 legislative session (that are not subject to word limits provided for in state law for other measures); allows any elector to petition the Oregon Supreme Court to challenge the title or statement
South Dakota HB 1244 20.0% 92.5% R-72.5% Provided a process for individuals who signed an initiative petition to submit a written request to the secretary of state's office to remove their signature from the petition
South Dakota SB 182 100.0% 100.0% 0.00% Repealed sections of state law, which created a residency requirement and a badge requirement for petition circulators, that were overturned by a court ruling
Utah HB 79 100.0% 100.0% 0.00% Provided a process for disabled individuals to sign initiative petitions and an alternative verification process for elections officials to verify such signatures
Utah SB 100 100.0% 100.0% 0.00% Provided that local government decisions to issue bonds are subject to veto referendums, provided that a veto referendum must be filed within five days (instead of seven) after the local legislation was passed
Utah SB 217 100.0% 100.0% 0.00% Required the local school board to update financial information and project status for general obligation bonds before the beginning of each new fiscal year and at least 30 days before a vote on a bond issue
Utah SB 221 100.0% 100.0% 0.00% Provided for the creation of new school districts through initiative petition
Washington SB 5825 100.0% 83.1% D+16.9% Provide that a library district can be dissolved through petition process only (rather than by the legislative body that created it or a petition process) with signatures from 25% of voters (rather than 10% under previous law) within the district
West Virginia SB 872 100.0% 100.0% 0.00% Provided an initiative process for creating and amending county fire fees

By state

Florida

  • Bill 1628: The bill requires bond issues greater than $500 million to be voted on at a general election[1]

Idaho

  • Bill 574: The bill requires bond measure ballot questions, when including information about guaranteed state tax relief funds, to include a specific dollar amount and expiration date. The bill prohibits a specific dollar amount of state tax relief funds from being referenced in such a ballot question unless the amount is guaranteed to the taxing district.[2]
  • Bill 521: The bill removed the ability for school districts to hold August elections on property tax bond questions.[3]
  • Bill 1376: The bill allowed for an Idaho Legislator to use public property and resources to communicate with the public advocating for or against an initiative or referendum.[4]
  • Bill 1377: The bill required paid signature gatherers to wear a badge, verbally inform signatories that they are paid signature gatherers, and require petitions to include a disclosure that it is being circulated by paid signature gatherers.[5]

Kentucky

  • Bill 829: The bill changed ballot question language for petitions to overturn local governments' ordinances prohibiting marijuana businesses and increased the number of required signatures from 5 to 10% of registered voters.[6]
  • Bill 58: The bill reduced the number of voters needed to form a petition committee seeking to overturn a tax levy from five to three; allowed petition sheets to include signatures of voters from more than one precinct; remove requirement for signers to include their social security number; require signers to include their birth date; changed signature requirement from 10% of votes in last presidential election to either 10% of votes in last presidential election or 5,000 registered voters, whichever is less[7]

Nebraska

  • Bill 287: The bill authorized the Secretary of State to charge a filing fee up to $750 to cover the cost of publishing the petition notice and extends the timeframe for contesting a petition (a) after it is first published and (b) after signatures are submitted from 10 days to 20 days.[8]
Note: Nebraska has a unicameral legislature.

New Jersey

  • Bill 4209: The bill removed the requirement for a district-wide vote on school budgets for Type II school districts in April elections except for separate proposals to spend additional funds.[9]

Oklahoma

  • Bill 518: The bill authorized the Secretary of State to charge a filing fee up to $750 to cover the cost of publishing the petition notice and extends the timeframe for contesting a petition (a) after it is first published and (b) after signatures are submitted from 10 days to 20 days.[10]
  • 1105: The bill changed the timeframe for filing challenges to initiative petitions from 10 days to 90 days. Specifically, the bill allows constitutional challenges to filed initiatives to be submitted within 90 days after the initiative is published (rather than within 10 days after publication) and allows challenges to signature validity or ballot language to be filed within 90 days after a notice of signed petitions is published (rather than within 10 days after publication).[11]

Oregon

  • Bill 4026: The bill prohibited veto referendums on local government determinations relating to urban growth boundaries.[12]
  • Bill 1538: The bill established a joint legislative committee to prepare the ballot titles and explanatory statements for legislative referrals placed on the ballot by the legislature during the 2024 legislative session (that are not subject to word limits provided for in state law for other measures). The bill allows any elector to petition the Oregon Supreme Court to challenge the title or statement.[13]

South Dakota

  • Bill 1244: The bill provided for a process for individuals who signed an initiative petition to submit a written request to the secretary of state's office to remove their signature from the petition. Under the bill, removed signatures cannot be not counted as valid in any legal challenge to the validity of a petition.[14]
  • Bill 182: Repealed sections of state law, which created a residency requirement and a badge requirement for petition circulators, that were overturned by a court ruling.[15]

Utah

  • Bill 79: Provided a process for disabled individuals to sign initiative petitions and an alternative verification process for elections officials to verify such signatures.[16]
  • Bill 100: Provided that local government decisions to issue bonds are subject to veto referendums, provided that a veto referendum must be filed within five days (instead of seven) after the local legislation was passed.[17]
  • Bill 217: Required the local school board to update financial information and project status for general obligation bonds before the beginning of each new fiscal year and at least 30 days before a vote on a bond issue.[18]
  • Bill 221: Provided for creation of new school districts through initiative petition.[19]

West Virginia

  • Bill 872: Provide an initiative process for creating and amending county fire fees.[20]

Washington

  • Bill 5824: Provide that a library district can be dissolved through petition process only (rather than by the legislative body that created it or a petition process) with signatures from 25% of voters within the district, an increase from the 10% requirement.[21]

Legislation proposed in 2024

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 2024

The following is a list of court rulings issued in 2024 that affected the ballot measure process.

Arkansas

Reynolds v. Thurston

See also: Reynolds v. Thurston, May 30, 2024

On May 30, 2024, the Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit brought by Arkansas Voter Integrity Initiative Inc and Restore Election Integrity Arkansas, two ballot question committees seeking to qualify initiatives for the 2024 ballot in Arkansas and wrote that the state supreme court could not rule on the sufficiency of ballot titles before the Arkansas Secretary of State issues a statement of sufficiency proclaiming that enough valid signatures were submitted for an initiative.[22]

The committees filed the lawsuit seeking to compel the court to rule on the legality of the initiatives' ballot titles before submitting signatures. The lawsuit also sought to overturn a state law requiring sponsors to meet a distribution requirement in 50 counties rather than in 15 counties.[22]

Colorado

Advance Colorado; et. al. v Secretary of State Jena Griswold

See also: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Advance Colorado; et. al. v Secretary of State Jena Griswold, April 26, 2024

On April 26, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that Colorado House Bill 1321 (2021) is constitutional and because it is government speech, it does not violate the First Amendment. HB 1321 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.[23]

Advance Colorado, which had proposed two initiatives targeting the 2024 ballot in Colorado, challenged the constitutionality of HB 1321 alleging that the bill "unconstitutionally compelled its political speech in violation of the First Amendment."[24]

Montana

Mae Nan Ellingson; et al. v. Montana

See also: Montana Lewis and Clark County First Judicial District Court, Mae Nan Ellingson; et al. v. Montana, June 21, 2023

On February 5, Lewis and Clark County District Court Judge Mike Menahan overturned the filing fee requirement in Senate Bill 93, ruling that the legislature "may not create arbitrary hurdles to discourage participation. Imposing a fee simply restricts access based on a person’s ability or willingness to pay," and that "the filing fee is an impairment on the exercise of the powers of initiative and referendum." The court also overturned the attorney general's power to perform substantive reviews of ballot measures and noted that Montana has prior case law prohibiting the attorney general from performing substantive reviews of proposed initiatives. [25]

Senate Bill 93 made multiple changes to the ballot initiative process, including establishing a $3,700 fee to file an initiative and prohibiting initiatives that are substantially the same as a measure that was rejected by voters in the past four years. The bill also required the attorney general to review a proposed constitutional initiative and determine whether or not the initiative is likely to cause significant material harm to one or more business interests in the state if approved and determine the substantive legality of the initiative. SB 93 also prohibited the use of electronic signatures for petitions.

Ten individuals filed three initiatives with the Montana Secretary of State's office targeting the 2024 ballot and all three were rejected because proponents did not include the filing fee. Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit alleging that the filing fee prevents individuals from participating in the ballot initiative process and also alleged that the attorney general's power to review the substantive legality of filed ballot initiatives is unconstitutional.[26]

Noteworthy events

FEC opinion allowing federal candidates to raise unlimited funds for ballot measure committees

On May 1, 2024, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) released an opinion in which it decided that federal officeholders and candidates are allowed to solicit funds for ballot measure committees without regard for amount limitations and source restrictions in the Federal Election Campaign Act. Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom, sponsors of an initiative that would create a state constitutional right to abortion targeting the 2024 ballot, requested the opinion from the FEC. The FEC is a regulatory agency with three Republican and three Democratic commissioners. Four of the commissioners (three Republicans and one Democrat) voted to approve the decision.[27]

In opposition to the FEC's decision, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) wrote that under the decision, "federal candidates will be permitted to solicit funds in unlimited amounts that will be spent to influence those candidates’ own elections, including funds from foreign national sources," and that “the risk of corruption inherent in direct foreign national contributions to candidates would simply metastasize to the ballot initiative context, with the same deleterious effect.”[27]

Hans Von Spakovsky, former FEC member and manager of the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Election Law Reform Initiative said the commission's decision aligns with precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has previously ruled that the Federal Election Campaign Act only applies to candidate elections and not ballot measure elections.

Preventing Foreign Interference in American Elections Act introduced by U.S. Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN)

U.S. Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Ted Budd (R-NC), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), and Roger Marshall (R-KS) introduced a bill in the United States Senate, titled the Preventing Foreign Interference in American Elections Act. The bill was designed to ban foreign nationals donating in connection with state ballot initiatives. Jason Snead, Executive Director of Honest Elections Project, said, "Foreign billionaire Hansjörg Wyss has funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to liberal groups like Sixteen Thirty Fund, which in turn has spent nearly $100 million on extremely consequential ballot measures in states across the country. We should protect election integrity by keeping foreign money out of American elections, which is why the Senate should take up and pass this critical legislation."[28]

A similar bill, the Preventing Foreign Interference in Elections Act, was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on May 15, 2024, by Bryan Steil (R-WI) and Stephanie Bice (R-OK). Steil said, "American elections must be free from foreign influence. By closing loopholes that allow foreign nationals from funding elections operations, we are one step closer in preventing foreign involvement in American elections. I’m committed to stopping foreign influence in U.S. elections and protecting U.S. donor privacy.”[29]

Update to Washington Administrative Code

Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs (D) filed a change to the state's initiative filing fee on January 11, 2024. The filing fee increased from $5.00 to $156.00. Hobbs also indexed the filing fee to the federal inflation benchmark. The change to the filing fee was the first since 1913. Hobbs said, "The participatory democracy of filing ballot measures is an important facet of our state government’s structure, but keeping the fee artificially low has problematic ripple effects. Many more ballot measures are filed now and never seriously pursued. The outdated fee structure may have made that a low-cost exercise for the filers. At the same time, receiving hundreds of filings that don’t cover their own costs has driven government expenses upward."[30]

An additional change required that the numbers assigned to each initiative be assigned through rolling a 10-sided dice, rather than numbering them based on when an initiative was filed.[30]

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
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. ↑ Florida State Legislature, "SB 1628," accessed May 11, 2024
  2. ↑ Idaho State Legislature, "HB 574," accessed March 22, 2024
  3. ↑ Idaho State Legislature, "HB 521," accessed April 16, 2024
  4. ↑ Idaho State Legislature, "SB 1376," accessed April 16, 2024
  5. ↑ Idaho State Legislature, "SB 1377," accessed April 16, 2024
  6. ↑ Kentucky State Legislature, "HB 829," accessed April 17, 2024
  7. ↑ Kentucky State Legislature, "SB 58," accessed April 17, 2024
  8. ↑ Nebraska State Legislature, "Legislative Bill 287," accessed April 30, 2024
  9. ↑ New Jersey State Legislature, "SB 4209," accessed January 23, 2024
  10. ↑ Oklahoma State Legislature, "Senate Bill 518," accessed April 30, 2024
  11. ↑ Oklahoma State Legislature, "House Bill 1105," accessed June 5, 2024
  12. ↑ Oregon State Legislature, "House Bill 4026," accessed March 22, 2024
  13. ↑ Oregon State Legislature, "Senate Bill 1538," accessed April 3, 2024
  14. ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "HB 1244," accessed March 18, 2024
  15. ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "SB 182," accessed March 19, 2024
  16. ↑ Utah State Legislature, "HB 79," accessed April 2, 2024
  17. ↑ Utah State Legislature, "SB 100," accessed March 22, 2024
  18. ↑ Utah State Legislature, "SB 217," accessed April 2, 2024
  19. ↑ Utah State Legislature, "SB 221," accessed April 2, 2024
  20. ↑ West Virginia State Legislature, "SB 872," accessed April 2, 2024
  21. ↑ Utah State Legislature, "HB 79," accessed April 2, 2024
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 Arkansas Advocate, "Arkansas Supreme Court rejects request to certify paper ballot initiative," accessed June 6, 2024
  23. ↑ Colorado State Legislature, "House Bill 1321," accessed June 20, 2023
  24. ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, "Case No. 23-1282," accessed April 26, 2024
  25. ↑ Daily Montanan, "Cause No. ADV-2023-388," accessed February 8, 2024
  26. ↑ News from the States, "Judge finds parts of bill adding new hurdles for Montana ballot initiatives unconstitutional," accessed February 8, 2024
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 NY Times, "Candidates for Federal Office Can Raise Unlimited Funds for Ballot Measures," accessed May 6, 2024
  28. ↑ Hagerty, "Bill would close loopholes being exploited by foreign nationals to quietly spend hundreds of millions to exert partisan influence on American elections, including through ballot harvesting, GOTV efforts, and state ballot measures," accessed April 25, 2024
  29. ↑ Committee on House Administration Chairman Bryan Steil, "Chairman Steil, Bice Introduce Legislation to Prevent Foreign Interference, Protect Donor Privacy, and Promote Election Security," accessed May 29, 2024
  30. ↑ 30.0 30.1 Washington Secretary of State, "Initiative filing fee change to take effect March 9," March 8, 2024
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Changes_in_2024_to_laws_governing_ballot_measures&oldid=9578030"