By: Eric Veram

SPRINGFIELD, Illinois: Today, May 7, marks the filing deadline for state petition drive efforts seeking to place constitutional amendments before voters in this year’s statewide election on November 6.

For a measure to be placed on the ballot petitioners must submit valid signatures equal to 8% of the total votes cast for Governor in the last election, meaning 298,399 names are required this year. Any measures that are approved by the Secretary of State would then be placed on the ballot this fall, where they would need a three-fifths approval by voters to be enacted.

As of today there are no known active attempts to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot this year. However, groups opposing a 2011 law allowing same-sex civil unions have been gathering signatures for an advisory question regarding a referendum on the law. If this question is placed on the ballot it would need to be approved by voters, then approved by the legislature, before finally being sent to voters again as a referendum.

By Maresa Strano

In late March, a candidate running for Oregon Commissioner of Labor and Industries in the upcoming election sued secretary of state Kate Brown for neglecting to notify either of the race’s candidates that the election date had been moved from May to November. The candidate who initiated the suit, Republican Bruce Starr, theorized a conspiracy was at play, led by the democratic secretary, to give Starr’s opponent, Democratic incumbent Brad Avakian, a better chance of winning re-election. Others speculated that Brown, though a lawyer, is not immune to misinterpreting complex legalese, and simply made a careless error. Both campaigns were forced to recalibrate their strategies and expectations in light of the six-month postponement.

Marion County Circuit Court Judge Steven Price ruled swiftly on the matter, in apparent agreement with Brown, ordering for the election to proceed in November. The secretary of state’s office wasted no time in issuing a press release to inform Oregonians whom it may concern of Secretary Brown’s redemption. Weeks later, however, the questions surrounding the issue’s snap-settlement persist.

On the office’s website, Brown said she was satisfied “with the timely judicial review and am pleased that it ultimately showed that our Elections Division acted in accordance with the law and in the best interest of Oregon’s voters.”^[1] Starr’s counsel has revealed to press sources that what actually occurred is not so clear-cut. Judge Price based his ruling on the fact that “Starr could not prove that irreparable harm would result” from moving the election to a different date and could not achieve the outcome he desired with the May election date looming so near. ^[2]The ruling was not necessarily in support of the statute, which, according to Brown, the court upheld in her favor. Furthermore, the parties could have agreed to an expedited hearing on the merits of the case so the judge could truly resolve the matter in time for the ballots to be printed in May, except Brown blocked their opportunity to make such an agreement.

Brown has defended herself against rumors of foul-play since the story broke, repeatedly stating that “This is an issue of election law, not politics.”^[3]

By Ballotpedia’s State executive team: Greg Janetka, Lauren Rodgers and Maresa Strano

SPRINGFIELD, Missouri: Candidates interested in of the Show Me state’s five executive offices up for election in 2012 had until yesterday to file with the Missouri Secretary of State. The filing deadline has been extended for the office of governor, due to candidate withdrawals, but the remainder of the candidate line-ups are set in the races for lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state andtreasurer.

As of Tuesday’s initial filing deadline, a total of 29 candidates are running for a state executive office in Missouri. This number may increase slightly due to the extension to file for governor, but it’s not likely to drop. Four of the five incumbent state executive officials are seeking re-election; Robin Carnahan, the current secretary of state, is retiring from office. Third party candidates are making a strong showing this year. The Libertarian Party has a candidate in each of the five races and the Constitution Party has candidates in the elections for governor, lieutenant governor and secretary of state.

Read more here!

By Eric Veram

Florida: With the petition deadline of February 1 being just two days away there are 24 public initiatives awaiting certification. Supporters of these petitions must gather at least 676,811 valid signatures and submit them by the deadline if they wish to qualify for this year’s ballot. However, in the state of Florida, if the petitions fail to acquire the required amount by this year’s deadline, the signatures on it will remain valid for two years before petitioners are required to start over.

Of the initiatives listed on the Florida Secretary of State‘s website, 7 are legislatively-referred constitutional amendments which have been certified and will appear on the ballot this November. Currently, there are another 3 such amendments working their way through the Florida legislature.

By Al Ortiz

AUGUSTA, Maine: The big day for initiative supporters in the state of Maine came and went. The day started off with six potential ballot initiatives vying for a spot on the statewide ballot; it ended with just one hoping for a chance for public vote.

January 30 marked the petition drive deadline, as any and all ballot initiative efforts that hoped to place their proposal on the 2012 ballot must have submitted collected signatures to the Maine Secretary of State’s office by the end of the business day. However, when contacted by Ballotpedia, the Maine Secretary of State‘s office stated that only one measure had submitted signatures.

That measure was the same sex marriage question, whose supporters claimed they had collected enough signatures for the ballot. Equality Maine collected about 100,000 signatures; 36,000 of those signatures were collected on Election Day, November 6, 2011, surpassing the required number.

According to the Maine Secretary of State‘s website, six proposals were approved for circulation for a possible 2012 vote.

One notable measure that failed to make the deadline was the clean energy initiative, whose supporters claimed that the effort failed to collect enough signatures. According to a spokesperson for the group in favor of the proposal, David Farmer, “We concluded that we didn’t have enough of a margin to be confident about qualifying for 2012. One more week likely would have been enough. We’re that close.”^[1]

Farmer stated that the group would focus on getting the proposal on the 2013 ballot.

In order for a measure to be placed on the 2012 ballot, 57,277 signatures need to be submitted. Signatures must be obtained from registered voters in the state. If enough signatures are collected, a measure would then be sent to the Maine State Legislature for review. If the lawmaking body chooses not to enact a measure into a law, it then gets sent to the 2012 ballot for a public vote.

The following is a list of the measures that were approved for circulation.

By Bailey Ludlam

JEFFERSON CITY, Missouri: The 30 citizen initiatives currently circulating petitions may be joined by at least one more proposal. Filed with the Missouri Secretary of State‘s office on January 17, the proposed initiated constitutional amendment calls for banning tenure for school teachers.

Specifically, it would restrict school districts that receive state funding or local tax revenue from entering in more than three-year contracts with teachers. If seniority plays a role in determining the job status of a teacher then that school would be barred from receiving public funds. School districts would be required to use local performance standards for salary, hiring, firing decisions.^[1]

The proposal was filed by Jefferson City attorney Marc Ellinger.^[2] It has not yet been approved for petition circulation. If approved, supporters will be required to collect signatures from registered voters equal to 5% of the total votes cast in the 2008 governor’s election from six of the state’s nine congressional districts. Signatures on behalf of all initiative petitions for the 2012 ballot are due to the secretary of state’s office by no later than 5 p.m. on May 6, 2012.

By Bailey Ludlam

JEFFERSON CITY, Missouri: Advocates of a renewable energy initiative for the 2012 ballot have filed their proposal with the Missouri Secretary of State‘s office. However, unlike other proposals, this one asks for the initiative language to be written by somebody other than Secretary of State Robin Carnahan.

Rep. Jay Barnes has asked that Carnahan recuse herself from writing the initiative language because her brother is an investory in wind energy production. “This renewable energy mandate would have a direct and incredibly lucrative impact on hundreds of millions of dollars of investment by a close family member of Robin Carnahan. If Robin Carnahan values fair government, she will immediately recuse herself and her office completely from this petition process,” said Barnes. Carnahan’s spokesperson said the request would be taken under consideration.

Initially, the proposal was filed in October 2011 but was later withdrawn “because of technical problems in how it was drafted.” A second proposal was submitted in earlyDecember 2011. The proposal, according to news reports, would maintain the same renewable energy targets as the initial proposal but would also give the state Office of Public Counsel the authority to monitor enforcement of the new standards.^[1]

The measure would require renewables to be used for 5 percent by 2014, 10 percent by 2017, 15 percent by 2020, 20 percent by 2023 and 25 percent of electricity by 2026.^[2][3]

Since its approval in 2008, Missouri Proposition C, Clean Energy Initiative has faced several road blocks and challenges. Among the issues is “whether electricity from renewable energy sources needs to be produced or sold in Missouri and the specifics of how to apply the 1 percent cap in rates.”^[4]

By Al Ortiz

BOSTON, Massachusetts: The Massachusetts Secretary of State cleared 23 initiatives in early September for petition circulation in order to be placed on the 2012 ballot. Then, on November 23, the first of many petition drive deadlines passed, where supporters must have turned in signatures to local registrars.

Once the collected 68,911 signatures, submitted to local registrars by the deadline, were certified, they were then returned to supporters, who must next submit them to the state’s elections office by December 7.

For now, only four ballot initiatives are left standing to possibly go on to the next part of the state initiative process.^[1]

The four measures include the “death with dignity” initiative, the proposal to require car manufacturers to give non-proprietary diagnostic directly to consumers to repair their cars, the initiative to create a new teacher evaluation process and the medical marijuana initiative.

The initiative process in the state of Massachusetts is among one of the most complicated in the country, leaving only a handful in recent years to go through the entire process. In 2010, thirty measures were filed, and only three made the ballot.

If the four measures’ supporters turn signatures in by December 7, and signatures are approved, the initiatives are then sent to the Massachusetts General Assembly.

There, if the general assembly does not choose to make the proposal a law, supporters must then gather additional signatures to obtain ballot access. Those signatures must be obtained from about 1/2 of 1% of voters who voted in the last governor election and supporters must submit them to local clerks.

Validated signatures must then be turned in by the first Wednesday of July to the Massachusetts Secretary of State‘s office. Since the deadline falls on a national holiday, July 4, that deadline could be either July 3 or 5.

By Tyler Millhouse

Since the beginning of the year, 254 laws have been proposed in 41 states affecting the initiative and referendum process, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.^[1]

The Citizens in Charge Foundation (CICF), a non-profit that promotes initiative and referendum rights, identifies proposed laws which either ease or tighten restrictions on ballot initiatives. In 2011, CICF identified 61 laws that make getting a measure on the ballot more difficult. Of these 61, seven have passed. CICF also identified 44 laws that would make the process easier. Of these 44, four have passed.^[2]

On November 8, nine states held elections that included statewide ballot measures. In total, voters weighed in on 27 ballot measures, approving 18 and rejecting nine. Including elections held earlier in the year, 22 ballot measures have been approved and 12 have been rejected in 2011. These new ballot measures will likely generate new legal battles that will shape the initiative and referendum process.

The Ballot Law Update is released on the last Wednesday of each month. Stay tuned to the Tuesday Count for weekly ballot law news.

Recent news

• Ohio election law referendum signatures: On November 14, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted determined that proponents of a veto referendum against HB 194 (an election overhaul bill that limits early, absentee, and weekend voting) had failed to collect sufficient signatures. However, under Ohio law, petitioners may submit additional signatures within 10 days of the Secretary of State’s determination. Only Ohio and Arkansas allow petitioners to submit additional signatures after an official count. According to the Ohio Democratic Party, part of a coalition opposing the law, 150,000 supplementary signatures had already been collected. Only 10,000 more are needed. On November 22, the coalition submitted 166,481 additional signatures–these signatures are currently under review.^[3][4][5]

• Minnesota disclosure rules: Under existing Minnesota disclosure rules, organizations are required to disclose donor information for dollars spent in favor of or in opposition to a ballot measure. Whether spending qualifies as such depends largely on the explicit intentions of the group. For example, ads that support traditional marriage but do not endorse the measure may not trigger disclosure requirements. The Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board had considered tightening requirements, but decided to postpone its decision to allow the Board to research various ways of extending disclosure requirements to less explicit forms of speech. Opponents worry this will leave the door open to advocacy groups with a desire to hide their donors. The Board has already tangled with pro-marriage amendment groups over stronger disclosure requirements. These groups fear that publishing the names of supporters could open them up to harassment or intimidation.^[6]

• (Update) Washington traffic cam initiatives: Initiatives to block red-light cameras in Bellingham, Longview, and Monroe were all resoundingly affirmed by voters on November 8, passing with 65%, 59%, and 68%, respectively. However, each of the proposed laws was ultimately relegated to advisory status by the courts. Proponents will have to wait to see whether local leaders will take action on the measures.^[7]

Court actions

• Guam decolonization election: With Guam’s self-determination vote most likely headed to voters in 2014, legal wrangling over the process has already begun. Arnold Davis, a Guam resident represented by the Center for Individual Rights, has filed suit against the Guam Election Commission for racial discrimination. Under the existing law of Guam, only native inhabitants are eligible to participate in the plebiscite. Although the definition of “native inhabitant” includes all those naturalized by the Guam Organic Act of 1950 and their descendants regardless of race, CIR argues that provision was intended to exclude members of non-Chamorro racial groups. This, contends CIR, violates the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit was filed in the District Court of Guam on November 21, 2011.^[8]

• The relevant section of the Guam Code Annotated can be found here.
• The revised text of the Guam Organic Act can be found here.

• Doe v. Reed injunction ruling: After receiving a temporary injunction in October, proponents of Washington Referendum 71 (2009) were denied a permanent injunction blocking the release of R-71 petition signatures. The plaintiffs, petition signers backed by Protect Marriage Washington, have been engaged in a protracted legal battle to keep the names on the petition private. After an earlier defeat, the state of Washington began releasing the signatures only to be stopped by the temporary injunction.
  The plaintiffs argue that releasing the signatures would subject signers to harassment. Opponents challenge this conclusion and argue that a transparent process is critical. In its November 16 ruling, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals maintained that the initial release of nearly 140,000 signatures renders the question moot, but is open to further arguments on the question of mootness.^[9] The plaintiffs appealed to the US Supreme Court for an injunction while the 9th Circuit prepares to rule on the merits. Their request was denied on November 21, 2011.^[10]

• The 9th Circuit’s decision can be found here.

• Wisconsin recalls and redistricting: As Democrats attempt to recall four GOP members of the Wisconsin State Senate, a group of Republicans has filed suit over the process. In documents filed on November 21, the group is asking the State Supreme Court to require the recall elections to be held in the state’s new legislative districts–a move that would benefit Republicans. According to the state’s redistricting legislation, state lawmakers will represent their new districts until new elections are held. Therefore, the plaintiffs argue that if the recalls are held in the old districts, some constituents (those newly added to districts) will be ineligible to vote in their new legislator’s recall.^[11]

• CA Supreme Court ruling on defense of Prop 8: On November 17, the California Supreme Court ruled that proponents of Proposition 8 can intervene in defense of the same-sex marriage ban. Proponents of the ban decided to intervene after state officials refused to defend the law. The court ultimately found that:

• “We conclude that when the public officials who ordinarily defend a challenged measure decline to do so, article II, section 8 of the California Constitution and the applicable provisions of the Elections Code authorize the official proponents of an initiative measure to intervene or to participate as real parties in interest in a judicial proceeding to assert the state‘s interest in the initiative‘s validity and to appeal a judgment invalidating the measure.”–See full decision in Perry v. Brown.

• Oral arguments in sidewalk case: On November 2, attorneys presented oral arguments in Initiative & Referendum Institute v. United States Postal Service. The US Court of Appeals in DC will decide whether the Postal Service may restrict signature gathering on the interior sidewalks of post office locations.^[12]

• Florida religious funding lawsuit: On October 27, a Florida circuit court heard arguments for the removal of Amendment 7 from the state’s 2012 ballot. The proposed measure would prevent individuals from being barred from participating in public programs if they choose to use public funds at a religious provider. Essentially, the measure moves to repeal the state’s ban of public dollars for religious funding, also known as the “Blaine Amendment.” Opponents worry that the measure is designed to legalize school vouchers. They argue that the measure’s title and summary conceal this fact and are misleading.
  The lawsuit also challenges 2011 legislation that allows the Florida Attorney General‘s office to rewrite ballot summaries or titles when the Florida Supreme Court removes a certified measure from the statewide ballot. The lawsuit argues that authority for such a change lies only in the Florida State Legislature. Blocking this provision would prevent the title and summary from being revised in order to keep the measure on the ballot.^[13][14]

Approved legislation

• Oregon House Bill 2634: HB 2634 creates a Citizens’ Initiative Review Commission to form and oversee impartial citizens panels tasked with reviewing ballot measures. These panels, in use in another form since 2009, review proposed measures for their fiscal impact and draft arguments for and against the measures.^[15] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Protects/expands initiative rights.

• Nevada Assembly Bill 81: AB 81 is an omnibus election overhaul, affecting many aspects of Nevada election law. With respect to initiatives, the bill requires any person or committee to identify themselves on any campaign communication on which they spent more than $100. In addition, the bill requires petitions to include the contact information of the circulator and a statement that the circulator is 18 years of age.^[2] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Reduces initiative rights.

• Nevada Assembly Bill 82: AB 82 is also an omnibus election overhaul bill. It requires that organizations advocating for or against a ballot measure abide by the campaign finance reporting requirements of political action committees. This change has the effect of lowering the reporting threshold from $10,000 to $1,000.^[16] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Reduces initiative rights.

• Nevada Senate Bill 133: SB 133 makes Congressional districts the basis for the state’s distribution requirement. Petitioners must now collect 10% of the required signatures in each of the state’s three Congressional districts. Two previous requirements using counties as the basis of the requirement were struck down by the courts.^[17][18] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Protects/expands initiative rights.

• Colorado House Bill 11-1072: HB 11-1072 creates several new requirements for initiative proponents. In particular, the bill requires proponents, within ten days of filing, to produce a report detailing all the expenditures relating to the circulation of the initiative. The report must include the dates of circulation, total hours worked, and gross wages earned by each circulator. After the report is filed, any registered voter may challenge the report within ten days. Initiative proponents then have ten days to correct the error or a judicial hearing is scheduled. If the judge determines that an intentional violation did occur, the proponents are subject to a fine equal to three times the omission. In addition, proponents may be subject to civil action by the voter who brought the challenge for the recovery of legal fees.^[19] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Reduces initiative rights.

• Florida House Bill 1355: HB 1355 contains extensive modifications to Florida’s election law. With respect to initiative and referendum, the bill cuts the signature gathering period from 4 to 2 years. It also shortens the window for challenging legislatively-referred ballot questions.^[20] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Reduces initiative rights.

• Arizona House Bill 2304: HB 2304 alters the state’s requirements for petition circulators, eases third-party primary access, and clarifies laws regarding wearing political apparel at polling places. With respect to initiatives, the law repeals the state’s unconstitutional circulator residency requirement. However, it replaces this requirement with a requirement that out-of-state circulators register with the state.^[21] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Reduces initiative rights.

• Oklahoma House Bill 1664 (2011): HB 1664 provides for the notification of initiative proponents regarding the title status of a ballot initiative.^[2] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Protects/expands initiative rights.

• Montana House Bill 391 (2011): HB 391 was passed by the Montana Legislature on March 28, 2011 and has since become law. The law prohibits local ballot measure from setting the enforcement priority of state laws. The law is seen as targeting a local ballot measure which instructed local law enforcement to make marijuana laws their lowest priority.^[22][23] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Reduces initiative rights.

• Utah Senate Bill 165 (2011): SB 165 changes the basis of Utah’s signature requirements from the number of votes cast in the last gubernatorial election to the number of votes cast in the last presidential election. This will raise the number of signatures required. In addition, the bill bans electronic signatures for ballot initiatives.^[24] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Reduces initiative rights.

• Virginia Senate Bill 889 (2011): SB 889 removes the requirement that voters include the last four digits of their social security number when signing a petition. Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Protects/expands initiative rights.

HARTFORD, Connecticut: Secretary of State Denise Merrill announced yesterday that Connecticut’s presidential primary will take place on April 24. The later date means 29 states will declare their preference prior to Connecticut.

The date was selected by the Legislature back in March, but according to Merrill it was “hotly debated.” While a number of states openly defied rules set out by the Republican National Committee by moving their primaries to fall before March 6, Connecticut did the opposite. Av Harris, Merrill’s spokesman, explained, “Basically both parties in Connecticut wanted to play by the rules. They wanted to do what their national parties were trying to encourage them to do.“^[1]

By law, on February 10, Merrill must announce the names of the candidates who will appear on the primary ballot and must select the order of the names on March 20.^[2] Voters are able to register up until one day before the primary.^[3]