DOCSLIB.ORG

Initiative and Referendum— Direct Democracy for State Residents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Initiative and Referendum— Direct Democracy for State Residents Initiative and Referendum— Direct Democracy for State Residents August 2009 Initiative and Referendum— Direct Democracy for State Residents A Publication of the Research Division of NACo’s County Services Department Written by Christopher Markwood Research Intern August 2009 National Association of Counties 1 About the National Association of Counties The National Association of Counties (NACo) is the only national organization that represents county governments in the United States. Founded in 1935, NACo provides essential services to the nation’s 3,068 counties. NACo advances issues with a unified voice before the federal govern- ment, improves the public’s understanding of county government, assists counties in finding and sharing innovative solutions through education and research, and provides value-added services to save counties and taxpayers money. For more information about NACo, visit www.naco.org. For more information about this publication or the programs included, please contact: National Association of Counties Research Division a Phone: 202.393-6226 � Web site: www.naco.org 2 Initiative and Referendum—Direct Democracy for State Residents • August 2009 Introduction Reflecting upon his visit to America, French historian and philosopher Alexis de Toc- Overview queville observed, “To take a hand in the Initiative and Referendum (I&R) powers give regulation of society and to discuss it is his state residents the ability to have a direct biggest concern and, so to speak, the only voice in the governing rules of their state’s pleasure an American knows.”1 constitution. These processes can also be an influential tool for local officials of coun- In comparing Americans to citizens of other ties and municipalities. In many cases, local countries, he noted that, officials are faced with the difficult task of “In some countries, the inhabitants changing or creating new legislation at the seem unwilling to avail themselves state-level in order to execute county poli- of the political privileges which the cies or create ordinances that are beneficial law gives them; it would seem that to their constituents. they set too high a value upon their Since the first statewide initiative was placed time to spend it on the interests of the on Oregon’s ballot in 1904, citizens of the community; and they shut themselves twenty-four states with the initiative process up in a narrow selfishness....But if an have placed 2,153 statewide measures on the American were condemned to con- ballot, with 41% of them passing. Numbers fine his activities to his own affairs, of initiatives are much less in odd years as he would be robbed of one half of his the constitutions of only five states permit existence; he would feel an immense initiatives in odd years: Colorado, Maine, void in the life which he is accus- Mississippi, Ohio, and Washington. Since tomed to lead; and his wretchedness 1996, an average of 70 initiative measures would be unbearable.” have appeared on ballots per every two-year More than 150 years later, Alexis de Toc- election cycle. queville’s observations help explain the grow- The first means of direct democracy, the ing interest in the exercise of initiative and initiative process, consists of an effort to referendum powers. Almost half the states propose a new constitutional amendment allow residents to initiate policy actions and or statute that can be placed on the ballot to vote on the approval or disapproval of for vote by the general public. Generally, pe- laws enacted by their state government— titioners or circulators first go to the state’s Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Col- Secretary of State for approval to receive an orado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Mas- official petition form for their desired initia- sachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, tive measure and for approval to circulate the Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, form for signatures. It varies by state whether Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, the circulators must be eligible residents and 2 Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. (Source: electors of the state in which they are pe- Initiative and Referendum Institute.) titioning. Once they accumulate a certain number of signatures (typically a set percent- age of the eligible voters), the proposal either 1 De Tocqueville, Alexis, Democracy, vol- gets directly placed on the ballot for a vote ume 1 (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1990): 250. by the people (“direct initiative”), or it first 2 Initiative and Referendum Institute goes to the legislature for a vote and then National Association of Counties 3 gets placed on a ballot if passed (“indirect an application to petition for an initiative initiative”). Of the twenty-four states that measure. Usually, the circulators must have have the initiative process, 18 allow for the the sponsorship of several state residents proposal of constitutional amendments and for their application to be approved. If ap- 21 allow for the proposal of state statutes. proved, the state officer provides the official The second measure of direct democracy initiative form to the circulator. Circulators consists of a proposal to repeal a law that are then required to obtain the signatures of was previously passed by the legislature, a required percentage of the state’s residents known as a veto referendum. In a process by a set date in order to pass the petition on similar to the initiative, a set number of sig- to the next step. After a petition is filed with natures must be collected on a petition form, the necessary number of signatures, the state then the law gets placed on the ballot for then verifies the validity of the signatures, a chance to be vetoed by the general pub- typically through random sampling. From lic. In total, 24 states allow the referendum state-to-state, discrepancies in I&R regula- process—although this process occurs less tions come from the signature requirements, frequently than initiatives. type of process that initiatives take (either direct or indirect), and the types of legisla- Despite many states having differing rules tion that can be sent to the ballot (amend- that regulate I&R processes, several com- ments or statutes). monalities in process exist amongst all the states. Typically, the state’s first step requires The following section and tables provide de- the circulators to present the state’s Secre- scriptions of each state’s requirements and tary of State (occasionally it is the Lieuten- regulations on the initiative and referendum ant Governor or the Attorney General) with processes. 4 Initiative and Referendum—Direct Democracy for State Residents • August 2009 State-by-State Summary the State Constitution, the state lays out the Alaska framework for its legislative process as fol- As the twentieth initiative state, Alaska has lows: permitted the direct democracy process since it entered the United States in 1959. Accord- “The legislative power of the people of ing to Article 11 of the State’s Constitution, this State shall be vested in a General “The people may propose and enact laws by Assembly, which shall consist of the the initiative, and approve or reject acts of Senate and House of Representatives, the legislature by the referendum.” In Alas- but the people reserve to themselves ka, the constitution does not allow constitu- the power to propose legislative mea- tional amendments by initiative and prohib- sures, laws and amendments to the its measures that dedicate revenues, make or Constitution, and to enact or reject repeal appropriations, create courts, define the same at the polls independent of the jurisdiction of courts or prescribe their the General Assembly; and also re- rules, or enact local or special legislation. serve the power, at their own option to approve or reject at the polls any In order for a petition to be brought before entire act or any item of an appropria- the lieutenant governor, it must contain sig- tion bill.” natures of at least 10% of the electors who voted in the previous general election. Ad- According to the provisions set out in the ditionally, the petition must have signatures constitution, a requirement of 8% of legal from at least 7% of voters from three-fourths voters (based upon votes cast in the previ- of the house districts (applicable for both ous governor’s election) must sign an initia- initiatives and referendums). tive petition to propose any law, and 10% of legal voters must sign a petition to propose a In Alaska, signatures must be sub- mitted prior to the convening of the legislative session in the year in which the initiative is to appear on the ballot. The lieutenant governor shall place the initiative on the elec- tion ballot for the first statewide elec- tion that is held after (1) the petition and any supplementary petition sig- natures have been submitted, (2) a legislative session has convened and adjourned, and (3) a period of 120 days has expired since the adjourn- ment of the legislative session. Arkansas Ratified in 1910, the State of Ar- kansas gives its citizens full direct democracy through its initiative and referendum powers. In Article 5 of National Association of Counties 5 constitutional amendment. For referendums, 6% of legal voters in the state must sign the California petition to force the measure to the ballot. In Article 2 of the California Constitution, the state provides the powers of initiative Additionally, the State restricts the geo- and referendum saying, “All political power graphic distribution of petitioners so that at is inherent in the people. Government is least 5% of legal voters in 15 of the state’s instituted for their protection, security, and 75 counties must sign the petition. Upon fil- benefit, and they have the right to alter or re- ing the petition at least four months prior to form it when the public good may require.” the election with the Secretary of State, the State will directly place the measure on the In order to push an initiative measure to the ballot for state residents to vote upon.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Return of Immigration Quotas Could Severely Challenge Switzerland's
    The return of immigration quotas could severely challenge Switzerland’s relationship with the European Union blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2014/02/04/the-return-of-immigration-quotas-could-severely-challenge- switzerlands-relationship-with-the-european-union/ 04/02/2014 On Sunday, Switzerland will hold a referendum on creating immigration quotas for all foreign nationals, including those from the European Union. Alexandre Afonso assesses the politics behind the proposal, which has been driven largely by the Swiss People’s Party. He writes that if the ‘yes’ campaign is successful, implementing immigration quotas would present a serious problem for Switzerland’s relationship with the EU. On 9 February, Swiss citizens will vote on a popular initiative “ against mass immigration” spearheaded by the right-wing Swiss People’s Party. The initiative put to the vote proposes to introduce global immigration quotas applying to all foreign nationals entering Switzerland: asylum seekers, labour migrants and family members of established migrants included. At the moment, Switzerland does not limit immigration from EU countries by virtue of a bilateral agreement on free movement with the European Union. Switzerland is also a member of the Schengen area, and has adhered to the Dublin convention on asylum. By contrast, non- EU migration is severely limited. In this context, a “yes” vote on Sunday is believed to pose a number of serious problems for its economy and relationship with the European Union: immigrants represent about a quarter of the Swiss workforce, and the invalidation of the agreement on free movement could potentially make all the other agreements between Switzerland and the EU (notably on the taxation of savings) void.
    [Show full text]
  • The Initiative and Referendum Process
    7KH,QLWLDWLYHDQG5HIHUHQGXP3URFHVVLQ:DVKLQJWRQ States with Initiative and/or Referendum Process Map courtesy of the Initiative and Referendum Institute %\ 7KH/HDJXHRI:RPHQ9RWHUVRI:DVKLQJWRQ (GXFDWLRQ)XQG Initiative & Referendum Committee Janet Anderson Tanya Baumgart Cheryl Bleakney Lael Braymer Patricia Campbell Cherie Davidson Elizabeth Davis Phyllis Erickson Rosemary Hostetler Marilyn Knight, Secretary Lee Marchisio Jocelyn Marchisio, Chair Jo Morgan Peggy Saari Ruth Schroeder Editor: Marilyn Knight Typographer: Jane Shafer Reading Committee Elizabeth Davis Steve Lundin Sue Mozer Liz Pierini Alice Schroeder Published by The League of Women Voters of Washington Education Fund October 2002 League of Women Voters of Washington 4710 University Way NE, #214 Seattle, WA 98105-4428 206-622-8961 LWV/WA Initiative and Referendum Study - ii Fall 2002 The League of Women Voters of Washington Education Fund 'LUHFW'HPRFUDF\ 7KH,QLWLDWLYHDQG5HIHUHQGXP3URFHVVLQ:DVKLQJWRQ 7DEOHRI&RQWHQWV Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1 The Initiative and Referendum in the United States .............................................................................1 Creating Initiatives and Referenda in Washington ...............................................................................4 Initiatives The Referendum Fiscal Impact Statement At the Local Level The Role of Money ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • California's Hybrid Democracy
    Working Paper No. 39 California’s Hybrid Democracy By Elizabeth Garrett USC Law School And California Institute of Technology California’s Hybrid Democracy Elizabeth Garrett* Legal scholars are beginning to engage in sustained study of direct democracy: initiatives, referendums and recalls. More than merely assessing constitutional issues implicated by the initiative process, we are studying the legal structure that shapes direct democracy. Our analysis remains incomplete for two reasons, however. First, we tend to think of direct democracy as exceptional – an exotic way to make laws and a process affecting only California and a few other Western states outside the mainstream of America. This vision is inaccurate. Although far fewer laws are enacted by the people than by state legislatures or city councils,1 direct democracy is part of government that affects the majority of Americans. Seventy-one percent of Americans live in a state or city or both that allow the popular initiative.2 Although California has a relatively high number of initiatives at the state level, Oregon has had the largest number of initiatives proposed and adopted, and California’s passage rate of 35% is substantially less than Florida’s passage rate of nearly 70%.3 Initiatives are not a purely Western phenomenon, although they are prevalent in Western states because of their popularity at the time these states entered the Union. Massachusetts, Maine, and Florida have relatively robust systems of direct democracy, as do New York City, Houston, and Columbus. Substantial sums of money are spent in issue * Professor of Law and Political Science, University of Southern California; Director, USC- Caltech Center for the Study of Law and Politics.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona State Legislature V. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm'n
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2014 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE v. ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA No. 13–1314. Argued March 2, 2015—Decided June 29, 2015 Under Arizona’s Constitution, the electorate shares lawmaking author- ity on equal footing with the Arizona Legislature. The voters may adopt laws and constitutional amendments by ballot initiative, and they may approve or disapprove, by referendum, measures passed by the Legislature. Ariz. Const., Art. IV, pt. 1, §1. “Any law which may be enacted by the Legislature . may be enacted by the people under the Initiative.” Art. XXII, §14. In 2000, Arizona voters adopted Proposition 106, an initiative aimed at the problem of gerrymandering. Proposition 106 amended Arizona’s Constitution, removing redistricting authority from the Ar- izona Legislature and vesting it in an independent commission, the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC). After the 2010 census, as after the 2000 census, the AIRC adopted redistricting maps for congressional as well as state legislative districts. The Ari- zona Legislature challenged the map the Commission adopted in 2012 for congressional districts, arguing that the AIRC and its map violated the “Elections Clause” of the U.
    [Show full text]
  • Indiana, 1851, Alaska, 1956: a Century of Difference in State Constitutions P
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Indiana University Bloomington Maurer School of Law Indiana Law Journal Volume 34 | Issue 1 Article 2 Fall 1958 Indiana, 1851, Alaska, 1956: A Century of Difference in State Constitutions P. Allan Dionisopoulos Indiana University Follow this and additional works at: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Legislation Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Dionisopoulos, P. Allan (1958) "Indiana, 1851, Alaska, 1956: A Century of Difference in State Constitutions," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 34: Iss. 1, Article 2. Available at: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol34/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INDIANA, 1851, ALASKA, 1956: A CENTURY OF DIFFERENCE IN STATE CONSTITUTIONS P. ALLAN DIONISOPOULOSt Despite America's traditional regard for constitutions and constitu- tionalism, serious students of government have frequently bemoaned our lack of an ideal state constitution. This is not to say that efforts have not been made to overcome this deficiency. With the adoption of the first Model State Constitution by the National Municipal League in 1921 the way was opened to a host of models, proposals, recommendations, and even modernized state constitutions-New York (1938), Georgia and Missouri (1945), and New Jersey (1947).
    [Show full text]
  • Amicus Curiae Michigan Civil Rights Commission in Support of Respondents
    No. 12-682 In the Supreme Court of the United States BILL SCHUETTE, MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, PETITIONER v. COALITION TO DEFEND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, INTEGRATION AND IMMIGRANT RIGHTS AND FIGHT FOR EQUALITY BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY (BAMN) ET AL., AND CHASE CANTRELL, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE MICHIGAN CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS Daniel M. Levy Counsel of Record 3054 West Grand Blvd. Suite 3-600 Detroit, Michigan 48202 [email protected] (313) 456-3812 Attorney for Amicus Curiae i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether a state violates the Equal Protection Clause by amending its constitution to prohibit race and sex-based discrimination or preferential treatment in public-university admissions decisions. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Question Presented ...................................................... i Table of Contents ........................................................ ii Table of Authorities ................................................... vi Interest of Amicus Curiae .......................................... 1 Introduction and Summary of Argument .................. 4 Argument .................................................................... 8 I. Because “preferential treatment” as a legal term should be legally defined by this Court to apply only to race specific ‘affirmative’ or other actions which are also “discrimination,” its prohibition does not interfere with university admissions policies in which race is but one of many equal factors considered as part of an effort to achieve broadly based diversity, and neither the prohibition nor the policy violates the Equal Protection Clause. ....... 8 A. Answering the question presented by this Court requires first defining the term “preferential treatment.” ............................... 8 B. “Preferential treatment” occurs when a university admissions process affirmatively provides an applicant or group of applicants with a benefit based on race in a way that unlawfully discriminates against others.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Emergency: Washington's Use of Emergency Clauses and the People's Right to Referendum
    State of Emergency: Washington's Use of Emergency Clauses and the People's Right to Referendum Bryan L. Page* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTROD UCTION ......................................................................................... 220 1I. B ACKGRO UND .......................................................................................... 223 A. The OriginalProvisions of Washington s Constitution................... 223 B. The History of the Initiative and Referendum ................................. 226 C. Adoption of the Initiative and Referendum in Washington ............. 229 D. Why the Referendum is an ImportantPart of Government ............ 233 III. HISTORY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF DECLARATIONS OF EMERGENCY IN WA SH IN G TON ...........................................................................................238 A. State ex rel. Brislawn v. Meath and the Early Cases...................... 239 B . The Confusion Grows ...................................................................... 242 C. CLEAN v. State and Other Recent Cases ....................................... 246 IV. CURRENT LIMITATIONS ON THE USE OF EMERGENCY CLAUSES ............. 252 A. Laws Preservingthe Public Peace,Health or Safety ..................... 255 B. Laws for the Support of State Government and its Existing Public Institutions............................................................................ 257 C. CurrentJudicial Review of Legislative Declarationsof Em ergencies ....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • BW 2018-2 Results 2018-11-07 (Official)
    Initiative & Referendum Institute 2018 No. 2 November (Revised 1/3/2019) BALLOTWATCH N OVEMBER 2018 ELECTION RESULTS Overview • November: 156 proposi- On November 6, voters decided tions in 37 states, includ- 156 ballot propositions across 37 ing 62 initiatives, 2 popular states, approving 69% of them. These referendums, and 83 legis- propositions consisted of 83 legislative lative measures. proposals, 62 citizen initiatives, 2 pop- • Most active states: Colora- ular referendums, 7 commission pro- do 13, Florida 12, Califor- posals, 1 constitutionally required advi- sory measure, and 1 constitutionally nia 11. required question on whether to call a • 69% of all propositions constitutional convention. approved. Initiative approv- The overall approval rate was al rate 50%. down slightly from 2016 and identical to 2014. The number of approved initi- • Hot issues: rights of crime atives — 32 for the year — is less than victims, health care expan- the 47 approved in 2016, but greater sion, marijuana legaliza- than the 16 approved in 2014. The tion, election reform. initiative approval rate of 50% was well above the historical norm of 41%. For • Bond issues: 18 proposi- more information on initiative trends, see IRI Report on Initiative Use (1904-2018). tions for the year, propos- This report lists every state-level ballot proposition in 2018. Compared to the first version of the ing a total of $29 billion in report, election outcome information has been updated to reflect official returns, and some errors new debt. have been corrected. For additional information on ballot measures, see ballotpedia.org . • For the year: 168 proposi- tions in 38 states, includ- ing 63 initiatives and 5 referendums.
    [Show full text]
  • We the People: a Needed Reform of State Initiative and Referendum Procedures
    Missouri Law Review Volume 78 Issue 4 Fall 2013 Article 14 Fall 2013 We the People: A Needed Reform of State Initiative and Referendum Procedures Nicholas R. Theodore Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Nicholas R. Theodore, We the People: A Needed Reform of State Initiative and Referendum Procedures, 78 MO. L. REV. (2013) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol78/iss4/14 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. File: Theodore – Final Formatting 3/17/14 Theodore:Created Theodore: on: 3/18/2014 6:29:00 We PMthe People Last Printed: 4/10/2014 2:50:00 PM COMMENT We the People: A Needed Reform of State Initiative and Referendum Procedures NICHOLAS R. THEODORE* I. INTRODUCTION The landscape of the United States’ political elections has been marked by many dramatic changes in the past century. While many are quick to point to several changes in political campaigning or the shift from a voting base predominated by white males to one that embraces women, minorities, and the youth vote, one largely unnoticed political trend that has grown substan- tially in recent decades is the use of the ballot initiative and referendum.1 Ballot initiatives enable citizens to bypass their state legislatures by proposing a new or amended law to be placed on the ballot in the next election.2 Refer- enda, on the other hand, are typically measures that originate with state legis- latures and are placed on the ballot by the legislative body to allow citizens to vote on the legislation.3 Having existed in some form in the United States since the 1600s,4 the ballot initiative and referendum have served as two of the few remaining strongholds of direct democracy in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 15 VOTER INITIATIVES
    VOTER INITIATIVES Chapter 15 VOTER INITIATIVES: MINERAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE James D. Linxwiler Guess & Rudd P.C. Anchorage, Alaska Synopsis § 15.01 Introduction § 15.02 The Initiative System, Its Origins, and Its Critics [1] Origins of the Initiative in the Progressive Era 1900–1920 [2] Can Money Buy the Outcome? [3] Is the Primary Effect of the Initiative to Bring Government Policy in Line with the Electorate? [4] A Skeptic’s View—What About Citizens United, Attack Ads, and the Like? § 15.03 Alaska’s Anti-Pebble Initiatives [1] Pebble Project [2] Summary of Alaska Initiative Statutes and Procedures [a] Constitutional and Statutory Provisions [b] Legal Challenges to Initiatives Before and After Elections: Enumerated Subject Matter Limits on Initiatives and the “Clearly Unconstitutional” Standard [3] 2007–2009 Initiative Challenges to Pebble: 07WATR and 07WTR3 [4] 2011–2012 Lake and Peninsula Borough Initiative Challenges to Pebble: “Save Our Salmon” [5] 2012–2013 Initiative Challenges to Pebble: 12BBAY [6] Financial Support, Collateral Litigation, and Controversy § 15.04 Montana and the Cyanide Prohibition: I-137, I-147, and the Seven Up Pete Venture Litigation [1] Initiative Process in Montana [2] Initiative 137 and Its Legal Challenges [a] Federal Campaign Financing Litigation Challenging I-125 and I-137 Filed Before I-137 Election [b] State Court Taking and Contract Clause Litigation—Seven Up Pete Venture v. State [i] Takings Claim [ii] Impairment of Contract Claim [c] Federal Court Takings Litigation Challenging I-137 [3] I-147—Unsuccessful 2004 Attempt to Repeal I-137 § 15.05 Colorado—Unsuccessful Attempts at Surface Mining and Cyanide Bans -1- [1] Initiative Process in Colorado [2] Ballot Title No.
    [Show full text]
  • Initiative and Referendum Guide
    Initiative and Referendum Guide State Capitol, Phoenix Published by the Office of the Secretary of State March 2019 Arizona Secretary of State’s Office Election Services Division 1700 W. Washington St., 7th Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85007 www.azsos.gov Initiative and Referendum Guide Table of Contents 1 Chapter 1: Circulating Initiative and Referendum Petitions ............................................. 1 1.1 What is the Difference between an Initiative and Referendum? ................................ 1 1.2 Necessary Components for Circulating a Petition ..................................................... 1 1.2.1 Establishing or Designating a Committee Sponsor ................................................ 2 1.2.1.1 Establishing a New Committee as Sponsor ..................................................... 2 1.2.1.1.1 Where to Register a New Committee .......................................................... 2 1.2.1.1.2 Preliminary Requirements for Forming a Committee ................................ 2 1.2.1.1.3 Components of a New Statement of Organization ..................................... 3 1.2.1.1.3.1 Committee Information ......................................................................... 3 1.2.1.1.3.2 Chairperson Information ....................................................................... 4 1.2.1.1.3.3 Treasurer Information ........................................................................... 5 1.2.1.1.4 Finalizing a Statement of Organization ...................................................... 6 1.2.1.2
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Statewide Processes
    Comparison of Statewide Initiative Processes 1 Definitions / Availability Anything that appears on the ballot other than a candidate for office is called a ballot measure. Ballot measures are broken down into two distinct categories – initiatives and referendums. Initiatives are when the citizens, collecting signatures on a petition, place advisory questions, memorials, statutes or constitutional amendments on the ballot for the citizens to adopt or reject. Twenty-four states have the initiative process (see table below). Of the 24 states, 18 have the constitutional initiative process which is further broken down into two distinct subcategories - direct initiative amendments (DA) and indirect initiative amendments (IDA). A direct initiative amendment (DA) is when a constitutional amendment is proposed by the people and is placed directly on the ballot for voter approval or rejection. An indirect initiative amendment (IDA) is when a constitutional amendment is proposed by the people but must first be submitted to the state legislature for consideration before the amendment can be placed on the ballot for voter approval or rejection. Sixteen of the 18 states have the direct initiative amendment process and two have the indirect initiative amendment process. Twenty-one of the 24 initiative states have the statutory initiative process which is further broken down into two distinct subcategories - direct initiative statutes (DS) and indirect initiative statutes (IDS). A direct initiative statute (DS) is when statutes (laws) or memorials (non-biding laws) proposed by the people are directly placed on the ballot for voter approval or rejection. An indirect Initiative statute (IDS) is when statutes (laws) or memorials (non-biding laws) proposed by the people must first be submitted to the state legislature for consideration before they can be placed on the ballot for voter approval or rejection.
    [Show full text]