CategoryBallot measures

In 2020, California voters will decide on bill to make their state the first to eliminate cash bail

By Ryan Byrne
In Ballot measures
January 17, 2019 at 3:31 PM
In 2020, Californians will decide a veto referendum to repeal Senate Bill 10 (SB 10), which would make California the first state to end the use of cash bail for all detained suspects awaiting trials. Instead, SB 10 would institute a system of risk assessments to determine whether a detained suspect should be granted pretrial release and under what conditions.
 
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed SB 10 on August 28, 2018, and the veto referendum to overturn the bill was filed on August 29. The American Bail Coalition, a nonprofit trade association, organized the political action committee Californians Against the Reckless Bail Scheme to advocate for the veto referendum. The PAC had raised $3.00 million as of September 30, 2018, with the next campaign finance report due on January 31, 2019. The top-ten donors to the committee were bail bond businesses, owners of bail bond businesses, or companies that provided services or insurance to bail bond businesses.
 
On November 20, 2018, proponents reported filing 576,745 signatures with election officials. At least 365,880 (63.44 percent) needed to be valid for the referendum to appear on the ballot. On January 16, 2019, the office of Secretary of State Alex Padilla reported that an estimated 80.69 percent of the signatures were valid, putting the targeted law, SB 10, on hold until voters decide the bill’s fate in 2020.
 
In the California State Legislature, one Republican supported SB 10, while most Democrats (67 of 81) voted to pass the bill. Some organizations, including the ACLU of California and Human Rights Watch, that oppose the existing structure of cash bail also testified against SB 10, taking issue with how risk assessments were going to be implemented and used. John Raphling, a senior researcher for Human Rights Watch, said, “We will not be joining the bail industry’s efforts, but we are not fighting for SB 10. We have a different vision of how to reform the pretrial detention system.”
 
Besides the Cash Bail Referendum, Californians will also decide a ballot initiative designed to amend or repeal several criminal sentencing and supervision laws passed during the second tenure of Gov. Brown (2011-2019). As of January 2019, three citizen-initiated measures had qualified for the ballot. The number of citizen-initiated measures on the 2020 California ballot will be set 131 days before the 2020 general election, which is June 25, 2020.


The State Ballot Measure Monthly: January 2019

By Josh Altic
In Ballot measures
January 17, 2019 at 3:26 PM

The first 2019 edition of the State Ballot Measure Monthly covers all six of the 2019 and 2020 statewide ballot measures certified to appear on ballots so far.

Here are the highlights:

  • One 2019 statewide measure, a transportation bond issue, is certified for the ballot in Colorado.
  • Five measures in four states are certified to appear on the ballot in 2020; these measures concern renewable energy, property taxes and revenue allocation, criminal sentencing and parole, and a constitutional convention question.
  • Three of the measures certified for the 2020 election so far are citizen initiatives, two in California and one in Nevada.
  • Two measures, the Colorado 2019 bond issue and a 2020 renewable energy initiative in Nevada, were automatically put on the ballot due to outcomes of ballot measures in November 2018.
  • The most recent measure to be certified for the ballot was a 2020 constitutional amendment in Michigan concerning the use of state and local park funds.
  • Citizen initiative signature requirements increased in 13 states and decreased in five states based on 2018 elections.
  • In addition to signature requirements increasing by 35 percent in Michigan due to 2018 turnout, initiative signature petition efforts in Michigan will have to meet a new distribution requirement for signature collection approved by the legislature and signed into law on December 28, 2018.


U.S. Supreme Court will not decide constitutionality of Ariz. ballot measure denying bail to those charged with sexual conduct with a minor

By Josh Altic
In Ballot measures
January 16, 2019 at 3:51 PM
On January 14, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a request from Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich (R) to decide whether a provision of Proposition 103, approved in 2002, violated the U.S. Constitution.
 
Proposition 103, a constitutional amendment, received 80 percent of the vote in 2002. The ballot measure was designed to prevent courts from granting bail for certain sexual crimes with minors under 15 years of age, including sexual assault, sexual molestation, and sexual conduct.
 
In 2017, the Arizona Supreme Court, in a 4-3 divided opinion, ruled that the provision denying bail to suspects charged with sexual conduct with a minor was unconstitutional. Bail, according to the court, could not be denied for those charged with sexual conduct with a minor without demonstrating that the suspect posed a risk to the victims or society. The provisions denying bail to suspects charged with sexual assault or sexual molestation were not affected.


Iowa secretary of state’s error restarts multi-year process to amend the Iowa Constitution

By Ryan Byrne
In Ballot measures
January 15, 2019 at 2:16 PM
Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate (R) said that his office failed to report two constitutional amendments that the 86th Iowa General Assembly (2017-2018) approved in 2018.
 
The Iowa Constitution required Pate to publish notifications in two newspapers in each of Iowa’s four congressional districts at least three months before November 2018. Due to the error, the earliest the constitutional amendments could appear on the ballot is 2022.
 
In March and April 2018, the legislature approved:
  1. an amendment to provide a state right to own and bear firearms, and
  2. an amendment to allow the governor to appoint a lieutenant governor in the event of a vacant office and revise the gubernatorial line of succession.
In Iowa, constitutional amendments are referred to the ballot for voter consideration after a simple-majority vote during two successive legislative sessions with legislative elections in between. The 87th Iowa State Legislature (2019-2020) needed to approve the constitutional amendments one more time for them to appear on the ballot in 2020.
 
Pate said that his office’s failure to publish notices meant that the first-session vote on the amendments didn’t count toward referral, and the process needed to restart. Pate said, “Due to a bureaucratic oversight, my office failed to publish the required notifications in Iowa newspapers of two continuing resolutions passed by the Iowa Legislature last year. I accept full responsibility for this oversight and offer my sincerest apology to the legislators and supporters who worked so hard on these bills.”
 
Both of the constitutional amendments received the support of legislative Republicans in 2018. Zero House Democrats supported the amendments, while Senate Democrats were divided on both of them. Democrats won 46 of 100 state House seats in November 2018 and could have an opportunity to block the constitutional amendments during the 88th Iowa State Legislature (2021-2022) if they can pick up at least four more seats in November 2020.
 
In 2004, former Secretary of State Chet Culver (D) made a similar mistake as Pate, failing to publish a notification on an amendment to replace the words insane and idiot with mental incompetence in the state constitution. The Iowa State Legislature had to re-start the process and referred the amendment to the ballot in 2008.
 
In 12 states, proposed amendments must be approved in two successive sessions of the state’s legislature. In 10 of these, approval in two sessions refers the amendments to the ballot for voter ratification. In one of these states, South Carolina, the state legislature votes to put the amendment before the state’s voters in just one session and later, if the state’s voters approve the amendment, the state legislature takes it up again. Delaware requires votes in two successive sessions of its state legislature, but these proposed amendments do not need to go before the state’s voters.


Initiative signature requirements increase in 13 states and decrease in five states based on 2018 elections

By Josh Altic
In Ballot measures
January 14, 2019 at 4:01 PM
Voter turnout in the 2018 elections caused a change in the number of signatures required for initiatives and veto referendums in 18 of the 26 states that allow at least one form of statewide initiative or referendum.
 
There are 13 states with initiative signature requirements based on midterm gubernatorial or secretary of state elections. In each of these states, turnout was higher than in 2014 and signature requirements increased.
 
In these 13 states, the signature requirement increases ranged from 3.2 percent in Maine to 70.3 percent in California, where the signature requirements are higher than they’ve ever been in the state’s 106 years of direct democracy. These increased requirements will apply to the 2020 and 2022 election cycles. In three states—Colorado, Maine, and Ohio—initiatives can go on the ballot in odd-numbered years as well, so these requirements will also apply to initiatives for the 2019 and 2021 ballots.
 
There are four states with signature requirements based on turnout at general elections. In each of those states, turnout was lower than in 2016 and signature requirements decreased. In these four states, the signature requirement decreases ranged from 11.3 percent in Alaska to 20.7 percent in Wyoming. These decreased requirements will apply to the 2020 election cycle, after which the requirements will be reset based on turnout in that election.
 
Six states base initiative signature requirements on odd-year or presidential year gubernatorial elections. The 2018 elections had no effect on the signature requirements in those states; the requirements will be determined by the 2020 elections.
 
Three states base signature requirements on voter registration or population. Idaho is one of these and was the fifth state to have a decrease in initiative signature requirements based on 2018 elections. Signature requirements in Idaho are based on voter registration totals at the time of the last general election. The other two states that base requirements on voter registration or population, Nebraska and North Dakota, calculate the requirement at certain stages of the initiative process rather than at the time of a previous election.
 
Signature requirements are determined differently depending on the state. The majority of states with citizen-initiated measures—16—base signature requirements on ballots cast for gubernatorial candidates in the preceding gubernatorial election. Four states base signature requirements on total ballots cast in the preceding general election. Of the remaining states, two states base requirements on voters for presidential candidates within the state, two states base requirements on registered voters, one state bases requirements on votes cast for secretary of state candidates, and one state bases requirements on the state population.
 



Record number of local marijuana tax measures on California ballots in 2018

By Jessica Martini
In Ballot measures
January 13, 2019 at 5:06 PM
The first ballot measure to introduce a tax on marijuana in the U.S. was passed in Oakland, California, on July 21, 2009. Since then, there have been 185 more measures related to marijuana taxes on ballots in California, most of which have proposed new taxes. Of the 185 total marijuana tax measures since 2009, 88 percent were approved.
 
California voters approved Proposition 215 to legalize medical marijuana in 1996. In 2016, voters approved Proposition 64, which legalized the possession, cultivation, and personal use of recreational marijuana. Proposition 64 also allowed for the sale and taxation of recreational marijuana in California, beginning on January 1, 2018.

In some cities and counties in California, measures proposing taxes on recreational marijuana were on ballots prior to the legal effective date of sales and taxation under Proposition 64. Many cities and counties, however, had measures proposing taxes on recreational marijuana on the ballot in 2018 following the effective date. There were 95 local marijuana tax measures on ballots across California in 2018, compared to 43 in 2016—a 220 percent increase. There were 16 marijuana tax measures on local California ballots in 2017; all but one were approved. From 2009 through 2015, there were 32 local marijuana tax measures in California.
 
Of the 95 marijuana tax measures in 2018, 86 were approved, amounting to a 91 percent approval rate. The highest tax rate on marijuana businesses that was approved in 2018 was 15 percent of annual gross receipts. This tax rate was approved in Atwater, Calexico, Ceres, Chula Vista, Oakdale, Palm Desert, Patterson, Sonora, Suisun City, Tuolumne County, and Yolo County. Two measures were approved in 2016 that had higher tax rates—a 20 percent gross receipts tax in Santa Barbara County and an 18 percent gross receipts tax in Carson. Tax rates ranged from 0 percent to 15 percent of gross receipts and from $0 to $25 per square foot for manufacturing and cultivation. Some taxes were based on net profits rather than gross receipts. Others were calculated per ounce.
 
An estimated $2.5 billion was spent on the purchase of legal marijuana throughout the state in 2018, a figure that was down from 2017’s $3 billion, according to GreenEdge sales tracking. Proposition 64 authorized the state to levy a marijuana cultivation tax of $9.25 per ounce for flowers and $2.75 per ounce for leaves and a 15 percent excise tax on the retail price of marijuana. These statewide taxes are in addition to any local marijuana taxes. State marijuana tax revenues reached $60.9 million in the first quarter of 2018, $80.2 million in the second quarter, and $93.1 million in the third quarter. Total marijuana tax revenues were lower than the $630 million predicted for 2018 by former Gov. Jerry Brown (D).


Kentucky State Senate passes its first bill of 2019—a 2020 ballot measure to move state executive elections to presidential election years

By Ryan Byrne
In Ballot measures
January 11, 2019 at 10:41 PM
On January 10, 2019, the Kentucky State Senate approved a constitutional amendment to change the election date for state executive officials from odd-numbered years to even-numbered presidential election years beginning in 2028. The vote was 31-4. Senate Republicans supported the amendment, while Democrats were divided 4-4. The constitutional amendment needs 60 votes in the state House, assuming no vacancies, to make the ballot on November 3, 2020.
 
The following offices would have their elections moved from odd-numbered to even-numbered years: governor, lieutenant governor, treasurer, auditor, attorney general, secretary of state, and commissioner of agriculture. The last election for state executive officials in Kentucky was November 3, 2015. The next election is scheduled for November 5, 2019. The measure would make the election on November 7, 2023, the last to be held in an odd-numbered year. Officials elected in 2023 would serve a five-year term, rather than a four-year term, until officials elected on November 7, 2028, were seated.
 
Sen. Christian McDaniel (R), who is sponsoring the amendment, said moving the election date would save the state about $15 million. Sen. Wil Schroder (D), one of the Democrats who voted for the amendment, said he believed that the move would double voter turnout in state executive races. Sen. Robin Webb (D) voted against the amendment, saying, “Kentucky needs to be allowed to focus on Kentucky issues and set aside the national fray… that sometimes are not as relatable to the Commonwealth and its issues and its people.” At the past five presidential elections, Kentucky voted for the Republican presidential candidate. At the state’s past five gubernatorial elections, the Democratic candidate won three of the elections and the Republican candidate won the other two.
 
As of 2019, 11 states held their gubernatorial elections during even-numbered presidential elections and 36 states held their gubernatorial elections during even-numbered midterm elections. New Hampshire and Vermont held their gubernatorial elections during even-numbered presidential elections and midterm elections because their gubernatorial term lengths are two years. Kentucky was one of five states that held their gubernatorial elections during odd-numbered years. The other four states are Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, and Virginia.
 


Window to file Initiatives to the People in Washington opened on January 5; signatures are due July 5, 2019

By Jackie Mitchell
In Ballot measures
January 11, 2019 at 8:31 PM

January 5 was the first day to file petitions for Initiatives to the People in Washington to start the process; 259,622 signatures are due by July 5 to qualify the initiatives for the 2019 ballot. Ballotpedia checks for new filings daily, so be sure to watch our coverage for updates. As of January 11, no Initiatives to the People had been filed.

Signatures for two Initiatives to the Legislature (the other type of citizen initiative in Washington) were submitted to qualify for consideration by the legislature and then to appear on the November 2019 ballot in Washington if the legislature does not approve them. Sponsors for each initiative submitted around 100,000 more signatures than the number of valid signatures required to qualify.
 
Citizens of Washington may initiate legislation as either a direct initiated state statute – called Initiative to the People (ITP) – or indirect initiated state statute – called Initiative to the Legislature (ITL). In Washington, citizens also have the power to ask voters to repeal legislation through veto referendum petitions. Citizens may not initiate constitutional amendments. The Washington State Legislature, however, may place legislatively referred constitutional amendments on the ballot with a two-thirds (66.67 percent) supermajority vote in each chamber.
 
Initiatives to the Legislature are considered by state legislators if enough signatures are submitted. If the legislature approves the initiative, it is enacted. If the legislature does not approve it, it goes to the voters. The deadline to submit signatures for 2019 Initiatives to the Legislature was January 4. Initiatives to the People go directly to the ballot if enough valid signatures are submitted.

 



U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear state-led lawsuits against California’s and Massachusetts’ meat and egg sale ballot initiatives

By Ryan Byrne
In Ballot measures
January 10, 2019 at 9:21 PM
On January 8, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear cases regarding whether ballot initiatives and related legislation in California and Massachusetts designed to regulate the sale of animal products violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The court did not issue a reason for declining the cases, but Justice Clarence Thomas said he would have granted hearings.
 
The cases involved California AB 1435—which was designed to enforce provisions of Proposition 2 (2008)—and Massachusetts Question 3 (2016). The cases also had implications for California Proposition 12 (2018).
 
California Proposition 2 banned the confinement of pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens in a manner that did not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs. The California State Legislature approved a law, AB 1435, that banned the sale of shelled eggs from hens confined to areas that did not meet Proposition 2’s standards. In 2014, 13 states sued California, saying that farmers located in their states needed to either increase production costs to meet the proposition’s requirements or forgo selling eggs on the market in California. AB 1435, according to plaintiffs, had a substantial burden on interstate commerce. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of California in 2016, with the court’s opinion saying that the plaintiff states failed to demonstrate that the law impacted them as states and their residents, rather than just egg producers.
 
Massachusetts Question 3 banned the confinement of pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens based on movement requirements. Question 3 banned the sale of animal products from animals confined in spaces in violation of the ballot measure. In December 2017, 13 states asked the Supreme Court for permission to file a complaint against Massachusetts, saying Question 3 “dictate[d] how other states choose to regulate business operations and manufacturing processes within their own borders.”
 
The Supreme Court’s decision not to take up the cases is good news for California Proposition 12 (2018), according to the Humane Society, which sponsored the ballot initiative. Proposition 12, like AB 1435 and Question 3, prohibited the sale of veal from calves, pork from breeding pigs, and eggs from hens when the animals are confined to areas below certain minimum size requirements.
 


Florida Supreme Court dismisses a decade-old lawsuit claiming the state’s education system violated Amendment 6 of 1998

By Jackie Mitchell
In Ballot measures
January 10, 2019 at 9:06 PM

The Citizens for Strong Schools v. Board of Education lawsuit was filed on November 18, 2009, in the Leon County Circuit Court alleging the state failed to “make adequate provision for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high-quality system of free public schools that allows students to obtain a high-quality education” as mandated by Amendment 6 of 1998.

On January 4, 2019, the Florida Supreme Court rejected the lawsuit, ruling that the judicial branch lacks the competence or authority to make funding and policy decisions.

Amendment 6 was on the ballot on November 3, 1998, when it was approved by a vote of 71 percent to 29 percent. The measure was referred to the ballot by the Florida Constitutional Revision Commission (CRC), which meets every 20 years on the following schedule: 1977, 1997, 2017, 2037, 2057, and so on. Amendment 6modified Article IX of the Florida Constitution to declare it “a paramount duty of the state” to provide for the education of children. Amendment 6 was one of nine ballot measures placed on the 1998 Florida ballot by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission.

Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Canady, Justice Alan Lawson and Associate Justice Edward LaRose said plaintiffs failed “to present any manageable standard by which to avoid judicial intrusion into the powers of the other branches of government.” Chief Justice Charles Canady said, “The judiciary is very good at making certain types of decisions — that is, judicial decisions— but it lacks the institutional competence — or the constitutional authority — to make the monumental funding and policy decisions that [the plaintiffs] seek to shift to the judicial branch.”

 

In the dissenting opinion, Justice Pariente wrote, “the majority of this Court fails to provide any judicial remedy for the students who are at the center of this lawsuit […] the citizens of this state intended for compliance — or noncompliance — with that provision to be adjudicated by the judiciary when properly brought to the court. Indeed, the task of construing the Constitution and determining whether the state is fulfilling its express obligations required by the Constitution — and the citizens of this state who approved the relevant constitutional language — is solely the judiciary’s task.”

The Florida Constitution Revision Commission convened in 2017 and referred eight constitutional amendments to the 2018 ballot. One was blocked from the ballot by a Florida Supreme Court ruling. The other seven were approved by voters.

Lawsuit timeline

Following is a timeline of the lawsuit from its 2009 filing to the 2019 state supreme court ruling:

  • January 4, 2019: Florida Supreme Court rejected the lawsuit on the grounds that the judicial branch lacks the competence or authority to make funding and policy decisions
  • November 8, 2018: Florida Supreme Court agreed to hear the case after asked by attorneys for Citizens for Strong Schools
  • March 2016: Trial held at the Leon County circuit court, where presiding judge George S. Reynolds, III dismissed the case, ruling that plaintiffs failed to prove that the state failed to meet their obligations mandated by Amendment 6 under Article IX
  • September 11, 2012: The Florida Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction and sent the case back to the Leon County circuit court
  • November 2011: The First District Court of Appeals panel of 15 judges voted 8 to 7 to deny the Writ of Prohibition and certify the suit as a “question of public importance,” which sent the case to the Florida Supreme Court
  • June 30, 2011: Hearing took place after the state appealed the denied Motion to Dismiss by filing an Extraordinary Writ of Prohibition, arguing that the courts have no authority to rule on the actions of the legislature
  • August 27, 2010: Circuit Judge Jackie Fulford denied the State of Florida’s Motion to Dismiss and ruled that the plaintiffs in the case had standing
  • November 18, 2009: Lawsuit filed in Leon County circuit court