CategoryBallot measures

Support and opposition campaigns surrounding Missouri Amendment 3 raised $7.9 million in contributions

Missouri Amendment 3 was approved with a margin of 51% to 49%. Amendment 3 eliminated the nonpartisan state demographer created by Amendment 1 (2018); returned the state to the use of bipartisan commissions appointed by the governor for legislative redistricting; altered the criteria used to draw district maps; and changed limits on state senate campaign finance and lobbyists’ gifts.

Support and opposition campaigns surrounding Amendment 3 reported $7.9 million in combined contributions and $7.8 million in expenditures. 

There were two committees registered in support of Amendment 3: Fair Missouri and Missouri Farm Bureau Fund for Real Representation. Together, they raised over $308,000. The top donors that contributed over $10,000 were the Republican State Committee ($200,000) and Missouri Alliance for Freedom ($41,000).

In addition to the committees formed to campaign in support of Amendment 3, six other political action committees made a combined $36,977.91 in independent expenditures supporting the measure. They are listed below:

  • Missouri Right to Life PAC: $2,325.26
  • Republicans of Pike County: $131.66
  • Missouri Farm Bureau Federation State PAC: $9,961.50
  • Don’t Tread on MO PAC: $18,758.00
  • Missouri Federation of College Republicans: $325.00
  • Northwest Missouri Conservatives PAC: $5,476.49

Clean Missouri, the sponsor of the 2018 amendment, registered in opposition to Amendment 3. It reported $7.5 million in contributions. The top donors to the committee were the National Education Association ($1.5 million), Action Now Initiative ($1.4 million), North Fund ($1.2 million), Open Society ($500,000), and Strategic Victory Fund ($500,000).

Campaigns supporting and opposing the 2018 amendment, which Amendment 3 reversed, reported nearly $6 million in contributions. In 2018, Clean Missouri received $4.7 million in contributions. The Action Now Initiative and the National Education Association were the top two donors to Clean Missouri in 2018 as well.

As of November 16, committees registered to support or oppose 2020 statewide measures reported a combined total of $1.19 billion in contributions and $994.1 million in expenditures so far.

The following five states have the most ballot measure campaign contributions reported so far:

  • California – $739.0 million in contributions
  • Illinois – $121.2 million in contributions
  • Massachusetts – $61.6 million in contributions
  • Colorado – $59.2 million in contributions
  • Arizona – $33.6 million in contributions

Louisiana voters reject amendment to allow out-of-state members on university boards

Voters in Louisiana rejected Amendment 1 in the state’s general election held on Dec. 5, 76.5% to 23.5%. The amendment would have allowed the governor to appoint at-large members to the boards of supervisors for the public university systems from out-of-state if there are multiple at-large seats and at least one at-large seat is filled by a member residing within the state. The amendment would have applied to the boards of supervisors for the University of Louisiana System, the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, the Southern University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, and the Louisiana Community and Technical College System.

The amendment was approved unanimously in both chambers of the legislature in October 2020. This amendment on the Dec. 5 ballot was the first post-November statewide measure in Louisiana since at least 1974.

State Sen. Cleo Fields (D), who sponsored the amendment in the legislature, said, “Leaders throughout the country have ties to our public universities. In fact, many alumni have skyrocketed to success in other states but are not permitted to give back in the form of board service. A yes on Amendment 1 welcomes new perspectives, expertise, and connections to Louisiana universities. … A yes on Amendment 1 maintains current boards and will only be used if appropriate at the expiration of an existing at-large member’s term.”

The Louisiana Republican Party argued that the amendment could result in positions on boards going “to rich outsiders who would do political favors to obtain such appointments from governors.” The Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana (PAR), a nonprofit organization, published arguments for and against the amendment. PAR wrote the following argument in opposition to Amendment 1: “There is no requirement that the out-of-state members be graduates of the institutions they will govern. A broader reform might have moved the details of the composition of these boards out of the Constitution and into statute where they can be adjusted as necessary by the Legislature.”

Louisiana voters decided seven constitutional amendments on Nov. 3, approving five and rejecting two. Louisiana voters decided 189 constitutional amendments from 1995 through 2019. Of those, 121 were on even-year ballots amounting to an average of 10 measures per even-numbered year. Voters approved 75 percent (141 of 189) and rejected 25 percent (48 of 189) of the constitutional amendments since 1995.

Additional reading:

Nevada voters reject ballot measure that would have increased legislative control over state board of regents

On November 3, Nevada voters chose not to adopt Nevada Question 1, a ballot measure that would have given the state legislature more control over the Nevada State Board of Regents. The Board of Regents is an elected executive agency that manages Nevada’s higher education system.

According to the 2017 legislation that introduced the ballot measure, the Board of Regents “has, at various times, relied on its constitutional status and its authority to control and manage the affairs of the State University as a defensive shield and cloak against the people’s legislative check of accountability,” and has “taken actions that have hindered, thwarted or undermined the Legislature’s investigation, review and scrutiny of the institutions, programs and operations of the Nevada System of Higher Education.”

The ballot measure would have removed references to the Board of Regents from the Nevada Constitution to ensure that the agency only uses authority derived from statutes passed by the legislature.

Supporters of the measure, like State Assemblyman Jim Wheeler (R), argued, “Question 1 simply makes the Board of Regents a statutory body, subject to checks and balances—an important American principle.” 

Opponents of the measure, like Board of Regents Member Laura E. Perkins, argued, “There’s no numbers or positive proof that the system that may or may not come out of this is better than the system that we have now.”

Questions about legislative control of administrative agencies often involve the nondelegation doctrine, one of five pillars key to understanding the main areas of debate about the nature and scope of the administrative state. The nondelegation doctrine is a legal principle holding that legislative bodies cannot delegate their legislative powers to executive agencies or private entities.

To learn more about the ballot measure or the nondelegation doctrine, see here:

Additional reading:

Text of the resolution:

Assembly Joint Resolution No. 5

Source of Wheeler quote:

Jim Wheeler: Vote for Question 1, reform higher education

Source of Perkins quote:

The Indy Explains: Question 1, a measure that would strike the Board of Regents from the Constitution

Voters in four states decided five measures concerning direct democracy Nov. 3

Voters in Florida and North Dakota rejected measures that would have required approval at two consecutive elections for constitutional amendments to be ratified.

Florida Amendment 4 was designed to require constitutional amendments to be approved by voters at two successive general elections to become effective. Going into the election, in Florida, if voters approve an amendment at one general election, it becomes part of the constitution. In Florida, constitutional amendments require a supermajority vote to become effective. This requirement was added to the constitution in 2006. The supermajority requirement would have applied to both elections if Amendment 4 was approved. The measure was rejected by a vote of 47.5% in favor to 52.5% against.

North Dakota Constitutional Measure 2 would have required initiated constitutional amendments passed by voters to be submitted to the legislature for approval. If the legislature did not approve the amendment, Measure 2 would have required amendments to be placed on the ballot again at the next statewide election to become effective if approved by the voters a second time. Measure 2 was rejected by a vote of 38% in favor to 62% against.

Nevada is the only state where initiated constitutional amendments must be approved at two consecutive elections. This does not apply to legislatively referred constitutional amendments, which must be approved twice by the legislature (with a majority vote) but only once by the state’s voters. Since the pass-it-twice requirement was created in 1962, there have been 14 citizen-initiated constitutional amendments that passed at the first election and appeared on the ballot again at the next election. Of the 14 measures, 12 were passed at their second elections (85.7%) and two failed (14.3%).

A legislatively referred constitutional amendment on the ballot in Arkansas would have changed many aspects of the state’s initiative process including:

  1. increasing the signature distribution requirement,
  2. shortening the signature deadline, and
  3. eliminating the current opportunity proponents have to collect additional signatures if they fall short.

The amendment would also have changed the size of the vote required of the state legislature to refer constitutional amendments to voters from a simple majority to a three-fifths (60%) supermajority vote requirement. The measure was defeated by a vote of 44% in favor to 56% against.

Two direct democracy measures on the ballot in Montana that were referred by the state legislature were approved. They did not change the state’s initiative distribution requirements but rather amended the state constitution’s language to match the distribution requirements that were already enforced.

Additional reading:

Massachusetts ballot measure campaigns raised over $61.6 million this election cycle

Support and opposition campaigns for Massachusetts’ two November statewide ballot measures reported raising a total of $61.6 million according to the latest campaign finance reports filed November 20. 

The Right to Repair Coalition, the sponsor of Question 1, reported $24.9 million in contributions. Question 1 was approved. It amended the 2013 “right to repair law” to require manufacturers that sell vehicles with telematics systems in Massachusetts to equip them with a standardized system beginning with model year 2022 that vehicle owners and independent repair facilities may access to retrieve mechanical data and run diagnostics through a mobile-based application. The top donors to the campaign included:

  • Auto Care Association ($4.6 million)
  • Coalition of Automotive Repair Equality ($4.2 million)
  • AutoZone ($3 million)
  • O’Reilly Auto Parts ($3 million)
  • Advance Auto Parts ($3 million)
  • Genuine Parts Company ($3 million)

The Coalition for Safe and Secure Data registered in opposition to Question 1 and reported $26.5 million in contributions. The top donors to the campaign included:

  • General Motors ($5.5 million)
  • Toyota Motor North America, Inc ($4.5 million)
  • Ford Motor Company ($4.5 million)
  • American Honda Motor Co., Inc ($3.0 million)
  • Nissan North America Inc. ($2.4 million)

The Ranked Choice Voting 2020 Committee sponsored Question 2, the ranked-choice voting initiative, which was defeated 54.8% to 45.2%. The committee reported $10.2 million in contributions. The top donors to the committee were the Action Now Initiative ($3.7 million), Kathryn Murdoch ($2.5 million), and Michael Porter ($450,000). 

No Ranked Choice Voting registered in opposition to Question 2, which was also opposed by Massachusetts Governor Charles Baker (R). The committee reported $8,475 in contributions. 

Committees registered to support or oppose all of the 129 2020 statewide measures have reported a combined total of $1.19 billion in contributions and $994.1 million in expenditures. Massachusetts ballot measure campaigns raised the third largest amount in contributions compared to other states. California campaigns raised the most with $739 million, and Illinois campaigns raised the second most with $121.2 million.

Additional reading:

Voters approve Alaska Ballot Measure 2 which adopts top-four primaries, ranked-choice general elections

Alaska Ballot Measure 2 was approved with 50.5% of the vote reported as of November 17. Ballot Measure 2 was designed to make several changes to Alaska’s election policies, including:

* replacing partisan primaries with open top-four primaries for state executive, state legislative, and congressional offices;

* establishing ranked-choice voting for general elections, including the presidential election, in which voters can rank the candidates; and

* requiring persons and entities that contribute more than $2,000 that were themselves derived from donations, contributions, dues, or gifts to disclose the sources of the contributions.

Under Ballot Measure 2, Alaska is the first state to adopt top-four primaries for state executive, state legislative, and congressional offices. Like the top-two systems in California and Washington, candidates run in a single primary election, regardless of a candidate’s party affiliation. Unlike in California and Washington, where the two candidates who receive the most votes move onto the general election ballot, Ballot Measure 2 moves the four candidates who receive the most votes onto general election ballots.

At the general election, voters elect state and federal candidates using ranked-choice voting. For state executive, state legislative, and congressional elections, voters rank the four candidates that advanced from their top-four primaries. A candidate needs a simple majority of the vote (50%+1) to be declared the winner of an election. If no candidate wins a simple majority of the vote, the candidate with the fewest votes would be eliminated. People who voted for that candidate as their first choice would have their votes redistributed to their second choice. The tabulation process would continue in rounds until there are two candidates remaining, and the candidate with the greatest number of votes would be declared the winner.

Ballot Measure 2 gives ranked-choice voting proponents their second statewide win after Maine approved Question 5 in 2016. In 2020, Massachusetts also voted on a ranked-choice ballot measure, but it was defeated. On November 3, local ranked-choice voting ballot measures were approved in Albany and Eureka, California; Boulder, Colorado; and Bloomington and Minnetonka, Minnesota.

Alaskans for Better Elections led the campaign in support of Ballot Measure 2. Through October 24, 2020, the campaign’s committees had raised $6.8 million, with contributions from several organizations that seek to change election policies. Action Now Initiative was the largest donor, providing $2.8 million. Unite America was the second-largest donor, providing $2.7 million. Former Rep. Jason Grenn (Independent) was chairperson of the campaign. Green described the ballot initiative as “kind of a three-pronged attack on making our elections better.” Speaker of the Alaska State House Bryce Edgmon (Independent) supported Ballot Measure 2, as did the Alaska Libertarian Party and former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld (R). 

Defend Alaska Elections led the campaign in opposition to Ballot Measure 2. Through October 24, Defend Alaska Elections, along with the Protect Our Elections PAC, had raised $472,836. The Alaska Republican Party provided $50,000 to Defend Alaska Elections. The Republican State Leadership Committee also provided $50,000. John Sturgeon, the chairperson of Defend Alaska Elections, described Ballot Measure 2 as “a 25-page-long mess that isn’t fair, democratic, or needed.” Former U.S. Sen. Mark Begich (D) and former Gov. Sean Parnell (R) opposed Ballot Measure 2.

Ballot Measure 2’s system of top-four primaries and ranked-choice voting general elections will be first used in 2022, which includes the gubernatorial, U.S. House, and a U.S. Senate election in Alaska. 

Voters in Arizona, Colorado, Illinois decide ballot measures regarding state income taxes

Voters in 12 states voted on 19 ballot measures addressing tax-related policies on Nov. 3. Ten of the measures addressed taxes on properties, three were related to income tax rates, two addressed tobacco taxes, one addressed business-related taxes, one addressed sales tax rates, one addressed fees and surcharges, and one was related to tax-increment financing (TIF).

The three measures concerning state income taxes were on the ballot in Arizona, Colorado, and Illinois. Arizona voters approved a measure to add a surtax for income above a certain level to fund education. Colorado voters approved an income tax decrease. Illinois voters defeated a measure to allow for a graduated income tax.

Arizona Proposition 208 was approved by a vote of 51.75% to 48.25%. The measure enacted a 3.50% income tax, in addition to the existing income tax, on taxable income above $250,000 (single filing) or $500,000 (joint filing). As of 2020, the highest income tax in Arizona was 4.50%, which was levied on income above $159,000 (single filing) or $318,000 (joint filing). Based on the existing income tax rates, the ballot initiative has the effect of increasing the tax rate from 4.50% to 8.00% on income above $250,000 (single filing) or $500,000 (joint filing). The Invest in Education PAC was registered in support of the ballot initiative. The PAC received $21.6 million in contributions. The Arizonans for Great Schools and a Strong Economy and No on 208 PACs were registered in opposition to the ballot initiative. The PACs received $5.7 million in contributions.

Colorado Proposition 116 was designed to decrease the state income tax rate from 4.63% to 4.55% for individuals, estates, trusts, and foreign and domestic C corporations operating in Colorado. It was approved by a vote of 57.88% to 42.12%.

The Colorado individual income tax rate has been a flat tax rate since 1987. The flat tax was 5% from 1987 to 1998. It was lowered to 4.75% in 1999. The rate has been 4.63% since 2000. Energize our Economy (306 Real Fair Tax) and Americans for Prosperity Colorado Issue Committee raised $1.55 million in contributions to support the measure. Protect Colorado’s Recovery and Fair Tax Colorado reported $3.19 million in contributions to oppose the measure.

An amendment to authorize the state to enact legislation providing for a graduated income tax was on the ballot in Illinois where it was defeated by a vote of 45.46% to 54.54%. The ballot measure would have repealed the state’s constitutional requirement that the state’s personal income tax is a flat rate across income. Instead, the ballot measure would have allowed the state to enact legislation for a graduated income tax. In Illinois, income is taxed at a flat rate of 4.95%.

The Vote Yes For Fairness, Vote Yes for Fair Tax, and Yes to a Financially Responsible Illinois PACs were registered to support the constitutional amendment. Together, the committees had raised $60.33 million. Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) contributed 94 percent of the PACs’ total combined funds.

The Vote No On The Blank Check Amendment, Coalition To Stop The Proposed Tax Hike, and Chambers Against Progressive Income Tax PACs were registered to oppose the constitutional amendment. Together, the committees had raised $60.86 million. Ken Griffin, the founder and CEO of Citadel, contributed 88 percent of the PACs’ total combined funds.

Going into the 2020 election, 43 states levied a tax on personal income. Of these 43 states, 11 states had a flat income tax rate, meaning there is a constant rate across income before deductions and exemptions. The flat income tax rates ranged from 2.00% in Tennessee to 5.25% in North Carolina. Tennessee’s income tax was scheduled to be reduced to 1.00% in 2020 and to be repealed entirely in 2021. Most (32 of 50) states had a graduated income tax, with different rates applied to different levels of income.

Additional reading:

Oregon ballot measure campaigns raised over $25.3 million

Support and opposition campaigns for Oregon’s four ballot measures reported raising over $25.3 million according to the latest campaign finance reports filed November 10. 

Yes for a Healthy Future, the campaign behind Oregon Measure 108, received the most contributions with over $13.7 million. The top donor to the committee with $3.3 million was Providence Health and Services, a Washington-based Catholic nonprofit hospital system. The opposition campaign—No on 108—reported $8,000 in contributions. Measure 108 was approved and will enact increased taxes on tobacco products and inhalant delivery systems (such as e-cigarettes).

Supporters of Oregon Measure 110, which decriminalized the possession of controlled substances, reported nearly $6 million in contributions with More Treatment for a Better Oregon receiving the bulk of the contributions. The top donor to the support committees was the Drug Policy Alliance with $5 million in contributions. Drug Policy Alliance is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit that has funded marijuana legalization and drug decriminalization efforts in other states. More Treatment for a Better Oregon also received $500,000 from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. The No on Measure 110 campaign reported receiving $167,740.00 in contributions with the bulk of that being in loans.

Yes for Psilocybin Therapy, the campaign in support of Measure 109, reported receiving $3.9 million in contributions. The top donor to the campaign was New Approach PAC with $3.5 million. New Approach is a 527 nonprofit organization founded in 2014 and based in Washington, D.C. The organization has supported other ballot initiatives to legalize medical and recreational marijuana. No campaigns registered in opposition to Measure 109, which was approved.

There were two campaigns registered in support of Measure 107: Yes for Fair and Honest Elections and Honest Elections Oregon. Together, they reported receiving $171,397.00 in contributions. The measure was approved. It will authorize the state legislature and local governments to enact certain campaign finance restrictions and requirements. The top donors to the support campaign were End Citizen’s United ($25,200), Kate Brown Committee ($27,833.00), and AFSCME Council 75 (20,000.00).

From 1985 to 2020, the average number of measures appearing on even-numbered year Oregon ballots was 14. The four measures in 2020 were the fewest number of measures to appear on even-numbered year ballots.

In 2020, committees registered to support or oppose statewide ballot measures reported a combined total of $1.19 billion in contributions. The following five states had the most ballot measure campaign contributions reported:

  • California – $739.0 million in contributions
  • Illinois – $121.2 million in contributions
  • Massachusetts – $61.6 million in contributions
  • Colorado – $59.2 million in contributions
  • Arizona – $33.6 million in contributions

Additional reading:

Wyoming amendment concerning municipal debt for sewage systems fails

The Wyoming State Legislature referred Constitutional Amendment A to the November 2020 ballot. The measure was designed to remove the constitutional limit on debt a municipality could incur for municipal sewer projects. Going into the election, the limit on total debt for municipal projects was 4% of the assessed value of the taxable property within the municipality. The constitution allows for an additional 4% for municipal sewer projects. The measure would have removed the additional limit of 4% for sewer projects and instead allowed the legislature to provide for additional indebtedness.

This measure failed since it required approval from a majority of voters casting a ballot at the election, which means leaving Amendment A blank was the equivalent of voting against it. Of the total ballots cast, 11.17% of voters either left Amendment A blank or filled in both “for” and “against.”

  • Total ballots cast at the election – 278,503 (100%)
  • Total votes for Amendment A – 126,589 (45.45%)
  • Total votes against Amendment A – 120,808 (43.38%)
  • Undervotes and overvotes on Amendment A – 31,106 (11.17%)

From 1996 through 2018, the Wyoming State Legislature referred 26 constitutional amendments to the ballot. Voters approved 18 and rejected eight of the referred amendments. Four of the eight rejected measures were defeated despite receiving more yes votes than no votes. They failed for the same reason Amendment A (2020) failed. All of the amendments were referred to the ballot for general elections during even-numbered election years. The average number of amendments appearing on the general election ballot was two. The approval rate at the ballot box was 69.23% during the 22-year period from 1996 through 2018. The rejection rate was 30.77%.

Five other states besides Wyoming have this type of requirement based on election turnout instead of votes cast on the measure itself. Four require constitutional amendments to be approved by a majority of all voters at the election, and one requires approval from a number equal to a majority of all voters casting a ballot for governor. Three other states have provisions that require approval from a certain percentage, ranging from 30% to 40%, of all voters at the election. Provisions like these mean that a certain number of undervotes on an amendment could prevent the measure from passing despite approval from a majority of votes cast on the measure itself.

Additional reading:

California Proposition 15, which would have created a split roll property tax, defeated

California Proposition 15 was rejected 48.1%-51.9% based to votes tallied through November 12. Proposition 15 would have required commercial and industrial properties, except those zoned as commercial agriculture, to be taxed based on their market value, rather than their purchase price. In California, the proposal to assess taxes on commercial and industrial properties at market value, while continuing to assess taxes on residential properties based on the purchase price, was known as split roll. 

Proposition 15 would have required that revenue, after accounting for adjustments, be distributed to schools and local governments. The state fiscal analyst estimated that, upon full implementation, the ballot initiative would generate between $8 billion and $12.5 billion in revenue per year.

Proposition 15 would have amended Proposition 13 (1978), which required that residential, commercial, and industrial properties be taxed based on their purchase price. The tax under Proposition 13 was limited to no more than 1 percent of the purchase price (at the time of purchase), with an annual adjustment equal to the rate of inflation or 2 percent, whichever is lower.

More than $148 million was raised for and against Proposition 15, making the measure the second most expensive of 2020 nationwide. Supporters had raised $74.2 million, and opponents had raised $73.8 million. Yes on 15 received contributions from the California Teachers Association ($17.8 million), Chan Zuckerberg Advocacy ($11.6 million), and the SEIU California State Council ($6.3 million). No on 15 received contributions from the California Business Roundtable ($31.9 million), the California Business Properties Association ($1.8 million), and California Taxpayers Association ($1.0 million).