The New Mexico State Legislature voted to send two constitutional amendments to statewide ballots in 2024 on March 17 before adjourning on March 18.
House Joint Resolution 5 (HJR 5) would extend the disabled veteran property tax exemption to all disabled veterans (or their widows) in proportion to their federal disability rating. Currently, the state constitution only authorizes the disabled property tax exemption for veterans (or their widows) with a federal disability rating of 100%. The disabled veteran property tax exemption was first added to the state constitution in 1998 with the approval of Amendment 5.
To put a legislatively referred constitutional amendment before voters, a simple majority vote is required in both chambers of the state legislature. The state House passed HJR 5 in a vote of 67-0 with three excused on March 2. It passed the state Senate by a vote of 39-0 with three excused or not voting on March 17.
The second amendment was introduced as House Joint Resolution 6 (HJR 6). It would amend the state constitution to increase the property tax exemption for veterans from $4,000 to $10,000 and adjust it annually for inflation. Approximately 74,000 veterans claimed the exemption in 2020 according to the Legislative Finance Committee.
The state House passed HJR 6 in a vote of 68-0 with two excused on March 6. The amendment passed the state Senate in a vote of 38-0 with four not voting or excused on March 17.
The amendments do not need the governor’s signature to go on the ballot.
In New Mexico, a total of 108 ballot measures appeared on statewide ballots between 1985 and 2022. Ninety-five ballot measures were approved, and 13 ballot measures were defeated.
Voters in Burlington, Vermont, and Redondo Beach, California approved ranked-choice voting measures in local elections on March 7.
Burlington Question 6 was approved with 64.4% of the vote. The measure amended the city’s charter to adopt ranked-choice voting for elections for the mayor, school commissioners, and ward election officers. Before Question 6, the candidate receiving a plurality of votes wins the office, unless no candidate receives at least 40% of the votes, whereby the top two candidates would proceed to a runoff election. The measure was put on the ballot by the Burlington City Council. In March 2021, Burlington voters approved a measure to adopt ranked-choice voting for city council elections.
Redondo Beach Measure CA5 was approved with 77.5% of the vote. The measure amended the city charter to implement ranked-choice voting for all city elected offices, thereby eliminating runoff elections. The amendment requires the city council to adopt an implementing ordinance to establish the electoral system. Seven other cities in California have adopted ranked-choice voting, including Oakland, San Francisco, San Leandro, Berkeley, Albany, Eureka, and Palm Desert.
Currently, two states (Alaska and Maine) had implemented ranked-choice voting in federal and/or state-level elections. One state (Hawaii) had adopted but not yet implemented RCV in certain elections. Another ten states contained jurisdictions that had implemented RCV at the local level. Another five states contained jurisdictions that had adopted but not yet implemented RCV in local elections.
In 2022, nine local ballot measures were related to adopting ranked-choice voting. Measures were passed in seven jurisdictions and were rejected in two.
Voters in Redondo Beach, California, will decide on five charter amendments and one ordinance at an election on March 7. Charter Amendment 1 would make the following changes to the bid process for public works projects:
increase the threshold for public works projects required to go through the formal bidding process from $50,000 to $200,000;
allow public works projects under $200,000 to be awarded according to an informal bidding process;
allow public works projects under $60,000 to be completed by city employees; and
allow the city council to change the bid minimums by at most 25% and no more frequently than five years by a four-fifths council vote.
Charter Amendment 2 would allow the city to pay a deposit before supplies, materials, property, or services have been actually delivered or rendered.
Charter Amendment 3 would change language in the charter to gender-neutral.
Charter Amendment 4 would remove the mayoral signature requirement on all contracts, ordinances, resolutions, and warrants, and allow the city council to authorize the city manager or another officer to sign such documents.
Charter Amendment 5 would adopt ranked-choice voting for city elections. City Councilmember Laura Emdee, who supports the change, said, “Runoff elections are expensive and have historically been hostile. Runoff elections also tend to have lower voter turnout than the city’s March general election. Using instant runoff, Redondo Beach will experience more amicable campaigns at a lower cost.” Seven cities in California have adopted ranked-choice voting, including Oakland, San Francisco, San Leandro, Berkeley, Albany, Eureka, and Palm Desert.
Measure CT would authorize the city to enact a cannabis and hemp business tax ranging from 3% to 9% of gross receipts for retail sales and a tax on cannabis testing labs at a rate between 1% to 3% of gross receipts.
All polls in California are open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on election day.
In 2022, campaigns supporting and opposing the seven ballot measures that appeared on the general election ballot amassed $724.8 million in contributions. This is an average of $103.5 million per measure, which is the highest average for California ballot measures between 2016 and 2022.
In 2022, the most expensive ballot measures were Proposition 26 and Proposition 27, with supporters and opponents receiving a combined $463.4 million. They are also the most expensive ballot measures in California from 1999 to the present. Both measures, which related to sports betting legalization, were defeated in November. Behind Propositions 26 and 27, campaigns surrounding Proposition 22, a 2020 measure related to app-based drivers and labor regulations, raised a combined total of $224.2 million.
The most expensive campaign was in support of Proposition 27, which received $169.1 million. The top donors to the committee were FanDuel ($35.0 million) and DraftKings ($34.1 million). Opposing campaigns raised a combined total of $249.3 million. The top donors were the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians ($103.1 million) and Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria ($31.9 million).
Committees supporting and opposing Proposition 26, which was the American Indian-sponsored sports betting measure, received $177.2 million.
The next most expensive ballot measure in 2022 was Proposition 29, which was defeated and related to dialysis clinic requirements. The PAC registered to support the measure received $7.9 million from SEIU-UHW West. The opposition PAC received $74.6 million in contributions. The top donors were DaVita, Inc. ($52.7 million) and Fresenius Medical Care ($27.3 million).
The year with the least amount of contributions between 2016 and 2022 was 2018 when $369.3 million was raised to support or oppose 16 ballot measures. The average amount raised per measure was about $23.1 million.
Campaigns behind the seven ballot measures that have qualified for the 2024 ballot in California have raised $101.3 million as of the latest campaign finance filings which covered through December 31, 2022.
The California secretary of state announced that a veto referendum seeking to repeal Senate Bill 1137 (SB 1137) had qualified for the 2024 ballot on Feb. 3.
If upheld by voters, SB 1137 would require all oil or gas production facilities or wells within a health protection zone to comply with new regulations. Health protection zones are areas within 3,200 feet of a sensitive receptor. Sensitive receptors include residences, education facilities, daycare centers, colleges and universities, community resource centers, health care facilities, live-in housing, prisons and detention centers, and any building housing a business open to the public.
SB 1137 would also require operators with a production facility or well with a wellhead in a health protection zone to develop a leak detection system for certain chemicals and detailed response plans. The law would also require the Air Resources Board (ARB) and the State Water Board to adopt performance standards for the emissions detection system. The facilities would be required to post contact information to receive complaints, limit sound levels, limit light generation, institute dust prevention measures, abide by vehicle speed limits, comply with air district requirements, and submit a chemical analysis of produced water to California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM). With signatures verified, the law is now on hold until the election in November 2024.
Stop the Energy Shutdown is leading the campaign to repeal the law. The number of signatures required was 623,212. The campaign filed 978,610 signatures. The final random sample count found that at least 687,058 signatures were valid.
The committee reported over $20 million in contributions in its latest campaign finance filing. It has received endorsements from the California Independent Petroleum Association (CIPA), E & B Natural Resources Management Corp., Macpherson Oil Company LLC, Sentinel Peak Resources California LLC, Signal Hill Petroleum, Inc., and the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California. California Independent Petroleum Association (CIPA) said, “If implemented, SB 1137 would increase CA’s already high gas prices by decreasing our energy supply and replacing it with expensive imported foreign oil that tankers must transport from counties that do not uphold the same environmental or labor standards.”
The referendum is opposed by Central California Environmental Justice Network, Sierra Club California, and Voices in Solidarity Against Oil in Neighborhoods (VISION). Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) released a statement saying, “I proudly signed SB 1137 last year to stop new oil drilling in our neighborhoods and protect California families. Big Oil knows that California is moving beyond fossil fuels, so on their way out these corporations are doing everything they can to squeeze out profits as they pollute our communities. We’re not standing for it.”
SB 1137 passed the California State Assembly by a vote of 46-24 with 10 not voting on Aug. 30, 2022. On Aug. 31, it passed the California State Senate by a vote of 25-10 with five not voting. It was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on Sept. 16.
In 2024, California voters are already set to decide on seven measures. Voters will be deciding on another veto referendum in 2024 that would repeal a law to establish a fast-food council to regulate working conditions in the industry. Four other citizen initiatives have qualified for the ballot related to pandemic prevention research and funding, the state’s minimum wage, remediation for labor violations, and vote requirements for new taxes. The state legislature also referred a constitutional amendment to the March 2024 ballot that would repeal the local voter requirement for publicly-funded housing projects classified as low rent.
An initiated constitutional amendment to increase the vote threshold for new or increased state and local taxes has qualified for the Nov. 2024 ballot in California. On Feb. 2, the secretary of state reported that after a full check of signatures, the campaign had submitted 1,075,585 valid signatures exceeding the 997,139 valid signatures required to qualify for the ballot.
In California, an initial random sample count is conducted to verify signatures. If the random sample count does not find more than 110% of the required number of signatures are valid, then a full check is conducted. Californians for Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability filed the initiative in November 2021 and submitted more than 1.4 million signatures in August 2022. The campaign initially targeted the 2022 ballot but missed the June 30 signature submission deadline.
The initiative would amend the California Constitution to state that “every levy, charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by state law is either a tax or an exempt charge” and define local taxes in the same manner. The amendment would require a law proposing or increasing a tax to include the duration of the imposition of the tax, an estimate of the annual revenue from the tax, a statement regarding the use of the revenue whether for specific or general purposes, and the ballot title and summary for the tax measure question.
Under the amendment, new or increased taxes must be passed by a two-thirds legislative vote in each chamber and approved by a simple majority of voters. The amendment would also increase the vote requirement for local taxes proposed by local government or citizens to a two-thirds vote of the local electorate. The increased vote requirements for new or higher taxes would not apply to citizen-initiated state ballot measures.
Currently, state tax increases require approval by a two-thirds vote in each chamber or a simple majority vote at a statewide election. Taxes can be reduced with a simple majority legislative vote.
The initiative has received endorsements from California Business Roundtable, California NAIOP, and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. As of the latest campaign finance filings submitted on Jan. 31, Californians for Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability had received nearly $16.4 million in contributions.
The campaign said, “The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act will give voters the right to vote on all future state taxes and holds politicians accountable for new fees and other increased costs paid by working families and all Californians.”
The initiative is opposed by AFSCME California, California Contract Cities Association, California Professional Firefighters, California State Council of Laborers, SEIU California State Council, and League of California Cities.
Graham Knaus, executive director of the California State Association of Counties (CSAC), said, “This deceptive initiative would undermine the rights of local voters and their elected officials to make decisions on critical local services that residents rely upon. It creates major new tax loopholes at the expense of residents and will weaken our local services and communities.”
The initiative is the sixth measure to qualify for the California ballot in 2024. The state legislature voted to refer a constitutional amendment to the March 2024 ballot that would repeal the local voter requirement for publicly-funded housing projects classified as low rent.
The other four measures are eligible to appear on the November 2024 ballot and are all citizen initiatives. The measures address creating a pandemic prevention institute, the state’s minimum wage, remediation for labor law violations, and regulation of fast-food working conditions.
Between 2010 and 2022, an average of nine initiatives qualified for California statewide ballots.
On Jan. 24, the California secretary of state announced that a veto referendum filed to repeal Assembly Bill 257 (AB 257) had qualified for the November 2024 ballot.
AB 257 would enact the Fast Food Accountability and Standards Recovery Act (FAST Recovery Act), which was passed along party lines and signed into law on Sept. 5, 2022. The act would authorize the creation of the fast-food council, within the Department of Industrial Relations, composed of 10 members including fast-food restaurant franchisors, franchisees, employees, advocates for employees, and a representative from the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development. AB 257 would also authorize the council to adopt a minimum wage for fast-food restaurant employees not to exceed $22 per hour in 2023 with adjustments annually.
The fast-food council would not be allowed to promulgate rules or standards concerning working conditions until the Director of Industrial Relations received a petition approving the creation of the council signed by at least 10,000 California fast-food restaurant employees. The law would authorize the labor commissioner and the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement to enforce the regulations adopted by the state council. The labor commissioner would be required to investigate alleged violations and order appropriate remediation.
In California, the number of signatures required for a veto referendum is equal to 623,212 (5% of the votes cast in the preceding gubernatorial election). Save Local Restaurants, the campaign behind the repeal of the law, filed over 1 million signatures on Dec. 5, 2022.
On Dec. 29, Save Local Restaurants filed a lawsuit against Director of the California Department of Industrial Relations Katie Hagen, California Secretary of State Shirley Weber (D), and California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) asking the court to stop the state from enforcing the law, set to take effect Jan. 1, until the signature verification process was complete for the petition. On Jan. 13, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne W.L. Chang granted a preliminary injunction keeping the bill from taking effect until the petition is verified by the state.
On Jan. 24, the secretary of state reported that the final random sample count contained at least 712,568 valid signatures.
Save Local Restaurants said in a statement, “During the highest inflation in more than four decades, consumers want to know that the restaurant meals they need in their busy lives will continue to be affordable, and that the jobs their communities rely on will still be there. Before they lose the brands that they love, voters will get the chance to have their say.”
The campaign has been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Restaurant Association PAC, and International Franchise Association Franchising PAC. The top donors to the committee funding the campaign include Chipotle Mexican Grill, In-N-Out Burgers, Starbucks, Yum! Brands, and Wing Stop.
Assemblyman Chris Holden (D-Pasadena), the author of AB 257 and a former fast-food franchisee, said, “AB 257 creates minimum standards for wages and work conditions, protects workers from being fired for organizing and establishes sectoral organizing with a fast food worker council. I’m proud to have ushered an inclusive approach to the industry by giving employees the chance to be included in a process that has always impacted them.”
SEIU California State Council, California Employment Lawyers Association, California Labor Federation, and Gig Workers Rising support upholding AB 257.
Four other ballot measures have qualified for the ballot in 2024 in California. In March, voters will decide on a legislatively referred constitutional amendment to repeal a constitutional requirement that voters approve publicly-funded housing projects classified as low rent.
Three other citizen initiatives will be on the ballot in November:
A combined statute and a constitutional amendment to create a state Pandemic Early Detection and Prevention Institute
A statute to increase the state minimum wage to $18 by 2026
A statute to repeal the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) and replaces it with a new process for remedying labor violations
In California, a total of 402 ballot measures appeared on statewide ballots between 1985 and 2022. Two hundred thirty-one ballot measures were approved, and 171 ballot measures were defeated.
Wisconsin voters will be deciding on three ballot questions—two constitutional measures and one advisory question—on April 4.
The constitutional measures relate to the conditions of release for an accused individual before conviction and cash bail. The two questions were referred to the ballot with the final passage of Senate Joint Resolution 2 (SJR 2) on Jan. 19.
In Wisconsin, the state legislature is required to approve an amendment by a majority vote in two successive sessions for the amendment to appear on the ballot.
During the 2021-2022 legislative session, the amendment was introduced as Assembly Joint Resolution 107 (AJR 107). The state Assembly approved AJR 107 by a vote of 70-21 on Feb. 15, 2022. The state Senate approved the amendment by a vote of 23-10 on Feb. 22.
During the 2023-2024 legislative session, the amendment was introduced as SJR 2. It was approved by the state Senate on Jan. 17, 2023, by a vote of 23-9. It was approved by the state Assembly on Jan. 19, 2023, by a vote 74-23. In both chambers, Republicans supported the amendment. In the House, Democrats were divided 12-23. In the Senate, Democrats were divided 2-9.
Questions 1 and 2 both amend Article I, Section 8 of the state constitution. Question 1 would authorize the state legislature to define serious harm in relation to the conditions—designed to protect the community from serious harm—a judge imposes on an accused person released before conviction. Question 2 would authorize judges to consider the following conditions when imposing and setting cash bail:
a previous conviction of a violent crime,
the probability the accused will not appear in court,
the need to protect the community from serious harm as defined by the state legislature,
the need to prevent witness intimidation, and
the potential affirmative defenses of the accused.
State Sen. Van Wanggaard (R), one of the sponsors of the amendment, said, “The proposed amendment also broadens the factors that a judge can consider when setting a monetary condition for release, or cash bail for violent crimes. As I said earlier, Wisconsin is the only state that only allows judges to consider a single factor when setting cash bail. Under our proposal, and for violent crimes only, judges will have the flexibility to determine bail based on the totality of circumstances.”
ACLU of Wisconsin opposes the amendment saying it “would undermine the safety and stability of people detained pretrial and their communities, exacerbate inequities in the state’s cash bail system, and raise significant concerns under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and the excessive bail prohibition under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”
Wisconsin voters last amended this section of the state constitution in April 1981 with the passage of Question 3. It was approved by a vote of 73.15% to 26.85%. The amendment permitted the legislature to allow courts to deny, revoke, or set terms of bail.
In 2022, Ohio voters approved a similar constitutional amendment that requires courts to consider factors such as public safety, the seriousness of the offense, a person’s criminal record, and a person’s likelihood of returning to court when setting the amount of bail.
The Wisconsin State Legislature also voted to send an advisory question to the April ballot asking voters, “Shall able-bodied, childless adults be required to look for work in order to receive taxpayer-funded welfare benefits?” The advisory question would have no binding effect.
To place an advisory question on the ballot, the state legislature is required to approve it by a simple majority vote in each chamber in one legislative session. The governor’s signature is not required to place it on the ballot.
The advisory question was introduced as Senate Joint Resolution 4 (SJR 4). It passed the state Senate on January 17, 2023, by a vote of 22-10. On January 19, the state Assembly passed SJR 4 by a vote of 62-35. Legislative Republicans and one Democrat supported adding the question to the ballot. The remaining Democrats opposed the question.
Between 1985 and 2022, 18 measures appeared on odd-numbered year ballots in Wisconsin. Eleven measures were approved, and seven were defeated. The last spring odd-year election to include a ballot measure in Wisconsin was in 2015. Voters approved the measure, which provided for the election of the Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice by a majority of the justices serving on the court.
The Texas State Legislature convened its 2023 regular legislative session on Jan. 10. The legislature can refer constitutional amendments, in the form of statewide ballot measures, to the ballot in odd-numbered and even-numbered years. However, Texas is one of four states with biennial legislative sessions that meet in odd-numbered years; therefore, most amendments have been referred to ballots in odd-numbered years.
Texas is one of 16 states that requires a two-thirds vote in each legislative chamber during one legislative session to refer a constitutional amendment to the ballot. That amounts to a minimum of 100 votes in the Texas House of Representatives and 21 votes in the Texas Senate, assuming no vacancies.
At the general election on November 8, 2022, Republicans retained control of the House and Senate, increasing their majorities in each chamber to 86-64 and 19-12, respectively. This means that Republicans cannot pass amendments without at least some support from Democrats – at minimum, 14 Democrats in the House and two in the Senate.
In 2022, the last election in Texas featuring constitutional amendments, both amendments received unanimous support from voting Democrats and Republicans.
As of Jan. 13, 96 constitutional amendments have been filed in the Texas State Legislature for the 2023 ballot.
Democrats filed 49 (51.0%) of the constitutional amendments.
Republicans filed 47 (49.0%) of the constitutional amendments.
72 (75.0%) of the constitutional amendments were filed in the House.
24 (25.0%) of the constitutional amendments were filed in the Senate.
In Texas, a total of 281 ballot measures appeared on statewide ballots between 1985 and 2022. Two hundred forty-seven (248) ballot measures were approved, and 33 ballot measures were defeated. The topics that were addressed most by the measures were taxes, bonds, and the administration of government. An average of 14 measures appeared on odd-numbered year statewide ballots.
Texas is one of 16 states that requires a two-thirds vote in each legislative chamber during one legislative session to refer a constitutional amendment to the ballot. That amounts to a minimum of 100 votes in the Texas House of Representatives and 21 votes in the Texas Senate, assuming no vacancies.
At the general election on November 8, 2022, Republicans retained control of the House and Senate, increasing their majorities in each chamber to 86-64 and 19-12, respectively. This means that Republicans cannot pass amendments without at least some support from Democrats – at minimum, 14 Democrats in the House and two in the Senate.
In 2022, the last election in Texas featuring constitutional amendments, both amendments received unanimous support from voting Democrats and Republicans.
As of Jan. 13, 96 constitutional amendments have been filed in the Texas State Legislature for the 2023 ballot.
Democrats filed 49 (51.0%) of the constitutional amendments.
Republicans filed 47 (49.0%) of the constitutional amendments.
72 (75.0%) of the constitutional amendments were filed in the House.
24 (25.0%) of the constitutional amendments were filed in the Senate.
In Texas, a total of 281 ballot measures appeared on statewide ballots between 1985 and 2022. Two hundred forty-seven (248) ballot measures were approved, and 33 ballot measures were defeated. The topics that were addressed most by the measures were taxes, bonds, and the administration of government. An average of 14 measures appeared on odd-numbered year statewide ballots.
As of Jan. 1, proponents have filed 160 ballot initiatives in four states for elections in 2023. Washington leads with 151 ballot initiatives. The three other states include Colorado (one initiative), Maine (six initiatives), and Ohio (two initiatives).
Between 2011 and 2021, an average of 161 ballot initiatives were filed for odd-numbered-year ballots. The highest number of initiatives filed during that period was 296 measures in 2021. The average number of initiatives certified for ballots during that period was five.
Washington had the highest average number of initiatives filed during that period with 125 initiatives, but it had the lowest certification rate at 1.7%, which amounts to an average of two measures over the 10-year period. The state with the highest certification rate for odd-numbered year ballots was Mississippi with 27.7%. The average number filed in Mississippi was eight.
The number of initiatives filed for odd-numbered year ballots is comparatively lower than the number filed for even-numbered year ballots. Between 2010 and 2022, the average number of initiatives filed for even-numbered-year ballots was 781 with an average of 57 initiatives making the ballot.
One initiative has already qualified for a statewide ballot in 2023. Oklahomans will decide on a recreational marijuana legalization initiative on March 7, 2023. Proponents initially targeted the 2022 ballot and submitted enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. However, due to legal challenges and statutory deadlines for ballot inclusion, the measure could not be placed on the 2022 ballot and was set to be voted on at a later election date. On Oct. 18, 2022, Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) ordered the measure to be placed on the March ballot.
