Author

Victoria Antram

Victoria Antram is a staff writer at Ballotpedia. Contact us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Missouri Supreme Court upholds Medicaid expansion amendment

On July 22, the Missouri Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a constitutional amendment enacting Medicaid expansion was constitutional. The decision reversed a lower court’s ruling that found the amendment approved by voters last August to be unconstitutional because it did not include a revenue source for the state to pay for the Medicaid expansion. The Supreme Court ruled that the amendment “does not remove the General Assembly’s discretion in appropriating money to MO HealthNet,” and therefore, “the circuit court erred in declaring article IV, section 36(c) constitutionally invalid.”

The Supreme Court concluded that the Department of Social Services and Missouri HealthNet, who are responsible for the administration of Medicaid in Missouri, are required to use the funds appropriated by the legislature on all eligible recipients under the adopted amendment. The amendment, which was approved by a margin of 53.27% to 46.73%, expanded Medicaid eligibility in Missouri to adults that are 19 years of age or older and younger than 65 whose income is 138% of the federal poverty level or below under the Affordable Care Act.

Stephanie Doyle, Melinda Hille, and Autumn Stultz—three individuals who qualify for Medicaid under the expanded eligibility—filed the lawsuit in Cole County Circuit Court. On June 23, Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem ruled that the amendment was unconstitutional because it did not include a way for the state to pay for the Medicaid expansion. He wrote, “If the court allows them to spend other state revenues by initiative such action would deprive the General Assembly of its constitutional right to appropriate revenues in all other non-initiative circumstances.”

Amy Blouin of the Missouri Budget Project said, “As a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling, Missourians across the state will finally be able to realize the health and economic benefits of Medicaid expansion. State after state has shown that in addition to providing insurance to those eligible, expansion is a fiscal and economic boon to state economies and budgets.”

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Dan Hegeman (R), who opposed the amendment, said, “The legal gymnastics employed by the court to get their desired political outcome sets a dangerous precedent and greatly diminishes the power of Missourians’ elected representatives.”

Since the Supreme Court has upheld Medicaid expansion, the state must file paperwork with the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to set up the enrollment process for newly eligible individuals. Governor Mike Parson (R) previously withdrew the state’s paperwork in May after the state legislature passed the state’s budget without expanding funding for Medicaid.

The amendment faced legal challenges before the vote last August. In May 2020, two separate lawsuits were filed against Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (R) challenging the constitutionality of the citizen-initiated ballot measure by Americans for Prosperity-Missouri and United for Missouri. Both lawsuits argued that the initiative was unconstitutional because it appropriated state funds without creating a new source of revenue. In June 2020, Cole County Circuit Judge Daniel Green ruled in favor of the initiative keeping it on the ballot. Judge Green argued that the ballot measure does not require the state legislature to appropriate money for Medicaid expansion, and therefore, it does not need to provide a funding source. Missouri Western District Court of Appeals upheld Judge Green’s decision to keep the initiative on the August ballot after United for Missouri and Americans for Prosperity-Missouri appealed the decision.

Missouri joins 38 states and Washington, D.C., in expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.



Citizens For A Safer Cleveland submits additional signatures to place police-related initiative on November ballot

On July 7, Citizens for a Safer Cleveland submitted an additional 3,208 signatures to the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections for verification after the committee was short 384 of the 6,270 valid signatures needed to qualify for the Cleveland ballot in November. 

On June 16, the committee announced that they had submitted about 13,000 signatures to the county board of elections. On June 25, the county board of elections announced that 5,886 of the submitted signatures were valid. The group had 15 additional days to collect enough valid signatures to make up the difference and qualify for the ballot.

The initiative would repeal and replace sections of the Cleveland City Charter concerning the organization and oversight of the Cleveland Police Department. It would grant the chief of police the authority to discipline police officers in any reasonably justifiable way, subject to subject to review by the Civilian Police Review Board and the Community Police Commission. The initiative would restructure the Office of Professional Standards to report to the Civilian Police Review Board rather than the executive head of the police department. The initiative would bar current or former police officers from serving as the administrator of the office and would require that the police chief (and the force at large) comply with any requests for information that the office makes within 30 days.

The initiative would also enact the following changes to the nine-member Civilian Police Review Board:

  • Require that two members of the board should be attorneys with experience defending victims of police brutality;
  • Transfer the power to remove board members from the executive head of the police department to the mayor;
  • Require that the board’s budget be equal to or greater than 1% of the budget allocated to the police department;
  • Grant the board the ability to initiate its own complaints against the police department;
  • Add a new requirement that the chief of police present “clear-and-convicting” evidence that the board’s disciplinary recommendations are erroneous if the chief does not want to comply with them; and
  • Add termination as the default disciplinary action for “bigoted content, slurs, or language.”

Lastly, the initiative would create the 13-member Community Police Commission. The duties of the Commission would include serving as the final authority over disciplinary actions of officers; interviewing and recommending candidates for police commander and inspector general; establishing and auditing police recruitment and training practices; and directing the investigations of the Civilian Police Review Board.

Ballotpedia is covering a selection of notable police-related ballot measures in 2021. In April, voters in Oak Park, Illinois, defeated a non-binding advisory question that advised the city to defund the police department. In May, voters in Austin, Texas approved a measure to establish the position of the Director of Police Oversight in the city charter. Voters in San Antonio, Texas, defeated a measure that would have repealed collective bargaining for police officers. Voters in Pittsburgh approved a measure to require police to knock on a door, announce their presence, and wait at least 15 seconds before entering a residence to execute a warrant. Allegheny County voters approved a measure to prohibit the solitary confinement of persons held in the Allegheny County Jail.

Additional Reading:

Cleveland, Ohio, Community Police Commission and Police Oversight Initiative (November 2021)

Notable local police-related ballot measures (2021)



Oregon voters to decide on removing slavery and involuntary servitude as criminal punishment from state constitution in 2022

On June 24, the Oregon State Legislature voted to send a constitutional amendment to voters in November 2022 that would remove language that allows slavery or involuntary servitude for duly convicted individuals. The amendment would also add language to authorize an Oregon court or a probation or parole agency to order alternatives to incarceration for a convicted individual as part of their sentencing.

To put a legislatively referred constitutional amendment before voters, a simple majority is required in both the Oregon State Senate and the Oregon House of Representatives.

This amendment was introduced as Senate Joint Resolution 10 (SJR 10) on January 11, 2021. It was sponsored by Democratic Senators James Manning Jr., Lew Frederick, and Rob Wagner. On April 14, 2021, the state Senate passed SJR 10 in a vote of 27-2 with one excused. On June 22, 2021, the state House passed SJR 10 with amendments in a vote of 51-7 with one excused. On June 24, 2021, the Senate concurred with the House amendments by a vote of 25-4 with one excused.

Oregonians Against Slavery Involuntary Servitude (OASIS) is leading the campaign in support of the amendment. They said, “SJR 10 would remove the exception of slavery and involuntary servitude from the Oregon State Constitution and brings us one step closer to a more just and equitable state and world. By changing this language, Oregon would do away with the antiquated racist legacy of slavery in our State’s most important document.”

In November 2022, Tennessee voters will also decide on a constitutional amendment to remove language that allows the use of slavery and involuntary servitude as criminal punishments. It would be replaced with the statement, “Slavery and involuntary servitude are forever prohibited.”

In 2020, voters in Nebraska and Utah voted to remove language from their respective constitutions that allowed the use of slavery and involuntary servitude as criminal punishments. Nebraska Amendment 1 was approved by a margin of 68.23% to 31.77%. Utah Constitutional Amendment C was approved by a margin of 80.48% to 19.52%. Voters in Colorado approved a similar amendment in 2018 after rejecting the proposal in 2016.

Ten states, including Oregon, have constitutions that included provisions prohibiting enslavement and involuntary servitude but with an exception for criminal punishments. Nine states have constitutions that include provisions permitting involuntary servitude, but not slavery, as a criminal punishment. One state—Vermont—has a constitutional provision permitting involuntary servitude to pay a debt, damage, fine, or cost. These constitutional provisions were added to state constitutions, in their original forms, from the 1850s to the 1890s. 

In 2022, Oregon voters will also decide on a constitutional amendment to require the state to “ensure that every resident of Oregon has access to cost-effective, clinically appropriate and affordable health care as a fundamental right.” 

From 1995 to 2020, the number of measures on Oregon ballots during even-numbered years ranged from four to 32. About 46.43% (78 of 168) of the total number of measures that appeared on statewide ballots during even-numbered years were approved, and about 53.57% (90 of 168) were defeated.

Additional reading:



Massachusetts voters will decide measure in 2022 creating additional income tax on income above $1 million

On June 9, the Massachusetts General Court convened a joint session and passed Senate Bill 5 (SB 5) by a vote of 159-41, which sent an increase in the state’s income tax for top earners to state voters in 2022.

SB 5 is a constitutional amendment that would create an additional 4% income tax on income above $1 million, increasing the rate from 5% to 9%. The additional tax revenue would be dedicated “to provide the resources for quality public education and affordable public colleges and universities, and for the repair and maintenance of roads, bridges, and public transportation.” Currently, Massachusetts is one of nine states with a flat income tax rate (5%).

The amendment would also authorize the $1 million threshold to be adjusted according to any changes in the cost of living in Massachusetts using the same method used to establish federal income tax brackets. The tax would take effect on January 1, 2023.

The amendment is identical to a 2018 citizen initiative that initially qualified for the ballot but was later removed by the Massachusetts Supreme Court following a lawsuit where they ruled that the measure violated a provision of the state constitution that requires an initiative “contains only subjects … which are related or which are mutually dependent.” The ballot initiative, according to the ruling, encompassed two subjects—a tax and a dedication of revenue, which were not mutually dependent in their judgment. The state’s single-subject rule does not apply to legislative referrals.

Representative James O’Day (D) introduced House Bill 86 (HB 86) during the 2019 legislative session. In Massachusetts, both chambers of the state General Court meet as a single convention to vote on amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution. An amendment needs to receive the vote of 101 of 200 state legislators during two successive sessions to appear on the ballot. During the 2019 legislative session, the bill was approved by a vote of 147 to 48 with five Democratic members absent or not voting. During the joint session convened Wednesday, the bill was approved by a vote of 159-41. All but one Republican, Sen. Patrick O’Connor, voted against the amendment, and all but nine Democrats favored it. The sole Independent member, Rep. Susannah Whipps, voted in favor of it.

On the eve of the vote, Democratic Representatives James O’Day and Jason Lewis wrote, “The reason why the Fair Share Amendment is so popular is that most people recognize that our wealthiest residents can afford to pay a bit more in taxes to help fund investments that expand opportunity and make our Commonwealth more just and equitable for all. … In fact, investments in a stronger education system and improved transportation infrastructure will strengthen our economy, expand opportunity, and make Massachusetts an even more desirable place to live, work, raise a family, and build a business.”

Raise Up Massachusetts, the non-profit coalition that sponsored the 2018 amendment, tweeted after the vote Wednesday, “We applaud the state legislature for their vote and thank our many grassroots partners for making this possible.”

In opposition to the amendment, Christopher Carlozzi, state director of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) in Massachusetts, said, “A millionaire’s tax could also send wealthy people fleeing the state and leave Massachusetts with less revenue, which would place a financial burden upon the remaining residents who would see taxes go up, small business owners included.” 

The amendment is the first ballot measure to be referred to statewide ballots in Massachusetts. Between 1962 and 2020, Massachusetts voters decided on 11 ballot measures related to state income tax. Nine measures were defeated, and two were approved.

Additional reading:



Texas voters will decide in November whether to allow counties to issue bonds to fund infrastructure in blighted areas

On May 28, the Texas State Legislature voted to refer a constitutional amendment that would add counties to the list of political subdivisions that may issue bonds to fund transportation and infrastructure projects in underdeveloped or blighted areas of the county. Currently, the Texas Constitution states that the legislature by general law may authorize incorporated cities and towns to issue such bonds. The proposed amendment would also prohibit counties from allocating more than 65% of property tax revenue increases annually to repay the bonds and prohibit counties from using the funds from the issuance of the bonds to build toll roads.

To put a legislatively referred constitutional amendment before voters, a two-thirds (66.67 percent) supermajority vote is required in both the Texas State Senate and the Texas House of Representatives.

This amendment was filed as House Joint Resolution 99 (HJR 99) on February 24, 2021. On May 13, 2021, the state House passed HJR 99 in a vote of 127-15, with eight absent or not voting. On May 26, the Senate approved an amended version of HJR 99 by a vote of 27-4. On May 28, the House voted to pass the amended version of HJR 99 by a vote of 126-13 with 11 absent or not voting.

The amendment is the eighth referred to the ballot during the 2021 legislative session, which adjourned on May 31. In November, Texas voters will also be deciding on

  1. limitations on religious services;
  2. a right to a designated essential caregiver in a nursing facility;
  3. homestead tax limits and exemptions for surviving spouses of disabled individuals and military service members;
  4. eligibility requirements for state judicial office;
  5. the power of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct over candidates seeking judicial office; and
  6. charitable raffles at rodeo venues.

During the 2021 legislative session, 218 constitutional amendments were filed in the Texas State Legislature. Legislators were permitted to file constitutional amendments through March 12, 2021, unless permission was given to introduce an amendment after the deadline.

• Democrats filed 92 (42.2%) of the constitutional amendments.

• Republicans filed 126 (57.8%) of the constitutional amendments.

• In the state Senate, 58 (26.6%) of the constitutional amendments were filed.

• In the state House, 160 (73.4%) of the constitutional amendments were filed.

• Of the Democrats, Rep. Richard Raymond (D-42) filed the most constitutional amendments—eight.

• Of the Republicans, Rep. Cody Vasut (R-25) filed the most constitutional amendments—seven.

Eight proposed constitutional amendments that received a vote in at least one chamber died with the adjournment of the legislative session. The amendments related to extending emergency declarations, property tax exemptions for certain physicians, the issuance of bonds, the reliability of state utilities, denial of bail for certain crimes, and the state budget. 

Between 2009 and 2020, an average of 192 constitutional amendments were filed during regular legislative sessions. The state legislature approved an average of nine constitutional amendments during regular legislative sessions. Therefore, the average rate of certification during regular legislative sessions was 4.7%. In 2021, 8 of the 218 proposed constitutional amendments were certified for the ballot, meaning the rate of certification was 3.7%, down from 4.6% in 2019.

Additional reading:



Constitutional amendment establishing a right to a designated essential caregiver will be on the November ballot in Texas

On May 27, the Texas State Legislature voted to refer a constitutional amendment to the ballot that would provide residents of nursing facilities, assisted living facilities, and state-supported living centers with a right to designate an essential caregiver who may not be prohibited from visiting the resident. It would also authorize the Texas State Legislature to pass guidelines for facilities to establish visitation policies and procedures for essential caregivers.

Senate Bill 25, the implementing legislation for the amendment, was approved in the last few days of the 2021 legislative session. SB 25 requires the executive commissioner of the Health and Human Services Commission to develop guidelines for the visitation policy of designated essential caregivers. The guidelines are required to include a visitation schedule, a minimum duration for visitation, physical contact between caregiver and the resident, and rules on safety protocols including a signature that a caregiver will comply with all protocols. 

The bill would also allow the facility to revoke the designation of the caregiver if the caregiver does not follow the protocols. The resident would be allowed to immediately designate a new essential caregiver. SB 25 would also allow nursing facilities to petition the Health and Human Services Commission to suspend visitation for an initial seven days and up to 14 days in a year if there is a health risk. The commission would be allowed to deny the petition if they disagree with there being a health risk. The law was designed to take effect on September 1, 2021.

State Sen. Lois Kolkhorst (R) said, “Visiting a loved one in a nursing home should be a right, not a privilege. If another health emergency occurs, our state’s caregivers will always have a way to safely go inside a facility for scheduled visits and ensure that their loved one’s physical, social, and emotional needs are being met.”

To put a legislatively referred constitutional amendment before voters, a two-thirds (66.67%) supermajority vote is required in both the Texas State Senate and the Texas House of Representatives.

This amendment was introduced as Senate Joint Resolution 19 (SJR 19) on March 3. On March 17, the state Senate passed SJR 19 in a vote of 29-0 with two absent. The House passed an amended version of SJR 19 on May 24, by a vote of 142-1 with seven not voting or not present. On May 27, the Senate concurred with the House amendments.

The amendment is the second referred to the Texas ballot that is related to policies put in place during the coronavirus pandemic. The legislature also voted to refer an amendment that would prohibit the state or any political subdivision from limiting religious services or organizations. 

As of May 28, Ballotpedia has identified 11 ballot measures certified for statewide ballots that were proposed in response to the coronavirus pandemic and coronavirus-related regulations. On May 18, 2021, Pennsylvanians approved two constitutional amendments related to the governor’s emergency powers, which have been a point of conflict between the Republican-controlled Legislature and Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf during the pandemic. The other ballot measures will be decided in 2022 and concern changes to election procedures, convening legislative sessions, and increasing appropriations limits during emergencies.

Since 1876 when the Texas constitution was adopted, it has been amended 507 times. Voters approved 91% (154 of 169) and rejected 9% (15 of 169) of the constitutional amendments on ballots between 1995 and 2019.

Additional reading:



Connecticut voters to decide early voting amendment in 2022

On May 27, the Connecticut State Legislature voted to send a constitutional amendment to voters in 2022 that would authorize the state legislature to provide by law for early voting. Currently, Connecticut does not permit early voting.

As of April 2021, 38 states and the District of Columbia permitted early voting. Early voting allows citizens to cast ballots in person at a polling place prior to an election. In states that permit early voting, a voter does not have to provide an excuse for being unable to vote on election day.

Cheri Quickmire, the Connecticut executive director of Common Cause, a progressive 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, said, “We trust Connecticut’s voters will embrace this additional option when it is on the ballot next year. In states that have Early Voting, people use it. In Georgia, for instance, more than two-thirds of November’s voters used in-person early voting to cast their ballots. In Florida, almost half of November’s voters cast their ballots early, in person.”

The Connecticut Constitution provides two paths for the Connecticut General Assembly to refer constitutional amendments to the ballot: (1) a 75 percent vote in each chamber of the legislature during one legislative session, or (2) a simple majority vote (50%+1) in each chamber of the legislature during two legislative sessions.

The constitutional amendment was introduced into the Connecticut General Assembly as House Joint Resolution 161 (HJR 161) during the 2019 legislative session. On April 24, 2019, the Connecticut House of Representatives passed HJR 161, meeting the three-fourths vote required to approve a constitutional amendment during one legislative session. As there was one vacant seat in the House, 113 votes were needed to approve the amendment during one session. The vote on HJR 161 was 125 to 24. On May 8, 2019, the Connecticut State Senate passed HJR 161 by less than the three-fourths vote required to approve an amendment during one session. The vote was 23 to 13. At least 27 votes were required to meet the three-fourths threshold.

As the constitutional amendment was approved during the 2019 legislative session by a simple majority vote in each chamber, legislators needed to approve the amendment again during the 2021–2022 legislative session by a simple majority vote. The amendment was introduced as House Joint Resolution (HJR 59). It was approved by the House on May 6, 2021, by a vote of 115-26 with 10 absent or not voting. On May 27, 2021, the Senate approved HJR 59 by a vote of 26-9 with one absent.

This is the first amendment referred to the 2022 statewide ballot in Connecticut. Between 1996 and 2020, voters approved 71% (5 of 7) ballot measures that appeared on statewide ballots in Connecticut.

Additional reading:



Texas voters will decide changes to the homestead tax exemption for surviving spouses of military service members

On May 23, the Texas State Legislature voted to send a constitutional amendment that would authorize a total residence homestead property tax exemption for a surviving spouse of a member of the armed services “who is killed or fatally injured in the line of duty.” Currently, the constitution grants the exemption to the surviving spouse of a member of the armed services “who is killed in action.” The amended language would include service members who are killed or fatally injured during military training or other military duties. The amendment would take effect on January 1, 2022.

In 2013, Texas voters first authorized the state legislature to grant exemptions for the surviving spouse of a service member killed in action with the approval of Proposition 1. The amendment was passed with 86.98% of voters favoring it and 13.01% of voters opposing it. At the time of Proposition 1’s approval, Section 1-b, Article VIII of the Texas Constitution allowed for various property tax exemptions on the homes of disabled veterans and their surviving spouses but did not previously grant such exemptions for the surviving spouses of service members who were killed in action.

To put a legislatively referred constitutional amendment before voters, a two-thirds (66.67%) supermajority vote is required in both the Texas State Senate and the Texas House of Representatives.

This amendment was introduced as Senate Joint Resolution 35 (SJR 35) on February 8, 2021. On April 8, 2021, the state Senate passed SJR 35 in a vote of 29-1, with one absent. On May 23, 2021, the House approved SJR 35 in a vote of 144-0 with six not present or not voting.

During the 2021 legislative session, 218 constitutional amendments were filed in the Texas State Legislature. Between 2009 and 2019, an average of 192 constitutional amendments were filed during regular legislative sessions. The state legislature approved an average of nine constitutional amendments during regular legislative sessions. Therefore, the average rate of certification during regular legislative sessions was 4.7%. In 2019, 10 of the 216 proposed constitutional amendments were certified for the ballot, meaning the rate of certification was 4.6%.

The Texas State Legislature is set to adjourn on May 31.

Additional reading:



Texas State Legislature sends an amendment to expand the authority of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct to 2021 ballot

On May 22, the Texas State Legislature voted to refer a constitutional amendment to the ballot that would expand the authority of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct to state judicial candidates. The amendment would authorize the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct to accept complaints regarding the conduct of candidates seeking judicial office and discipline candidates, in the same manner, the commission is currently authorized to do so with judicial officeholders. Currently, the Texas Constitution authorizes the commission to discipline sitting judges through involuntary retirement, censure, unpaid suspension, or removal from office once indicted by a state or federal grand jury for a felony offense or charged with a misdemeanor involving official misconduct.

The commission is made up of 13 members: six judges, two lawyers, and five members of the public. The judges are appointed by the state supreme court, the lawyers are appointed by the State Bar of Texas, and the members of the public are appointed by the governor.

To put a legislatively referred constitutional amendment before voters, a two-thirds (66.67 percent) supermajority vote is required in both the Texas State Senate and the Texas House of Representatives.

This amendment was filed as House Joint Resolution 165 (HJR 165) on April 27, 2021. Representative Jacey Jetton (R) requested permission to introduce the bill after the March 12 deadline to submit constitutional amendments. On May 13, 2021, the state House passed HJR 165 in a vote of 137-0 with 13 not present or not voting. On May 22, 2021, the Senate approved HJR 165 by a vote of 31-0.

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.

During the 2021 legislative session, 218 constitutional amendments were filed in the Texas State Legislature. The 2021 legislative session began on January 12, 2021, and will adjourn on May 31, 2021.

The Texas Legislature has also referred five other ballot measures to the November ballot. One other measure relates to the state judiciary. It would change the eligibility requirements for the following judicial offices: a justice of the supreme court, a judge of the court of criminal appeals, a justice of a court of appeals, and a district judge. The other amendments relate to taxes, raffles at rodeo venues, and religious services.

Between 1995 and 2020, Texas voters approved 91% (154 of 169) and rejected 9% (15 of 169) of the constitutional amendments that appeared on statewide ballots.

Additional reading:



Texas voters to decide whether rodeo venues can host charitable raffles in November

On May 22, the Texas State Legislature voted to send a constitutional amendment to the ballot that would authorize professional sports team charitable foundations to conduct raffles at rodeo venues. The amendment would also include “an organization sanctioned by the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association or the Women ’s Professional Rodeo Association” when defining “professional sports team.”

To put a legislatively referred constitutional amendment before voters, a two-thirds (66.67 percent) supermajority vote is required in both the Texas State Senate and the Texas House of Representatives.

This amendment was filed as House Joint Resolution 143 (HJR 143) on March 11, 2021. On May 3, 2021, the state House passed HJR 143 in a vote of 123-17, with 10 absent or not voting. The Senate passed the amendment on May 22, 2021, by a vote of 28-2 with one absent.

During the 2021 legislative session, 218 constitutional amendments were filed in the Texas State Legislature. Between 2009 and 2019, an average of 192 constitutional amendments were filed during regular legislative sessions. The state legislature approved an average of nine constitutional amendments during regular legislative sessions. Therefore, the average rate of certification during regular legislative sessions was 4.7%. In 2019, 10 of the 216 proposed constitutional amendments were certified for the ballot, meaning the rate of certification was 4.6%. The 2021 legislative session began on January 12, 2021, and will adjourn on May 31, 2021.

The Texas Legislature has also referred five other ballot measures to the November ballot.

Additional reading: