Ballot Initiative Strategy Center Email Summarizes Various Attacks on Initiative Processes in Several States

Posted on by March 20, 2025

The following is copied from a BISC email of March 19, 2025:

Attacks on Ballot Initiative Signature Collection

In legislatures around the country, lawmakers are proposing higher or broader collection requirements, superfluous canvasser protocols, and tighter deadlines. Though bill sponsors and their proponents claim the demands are necessary to prevent petition fraud, they’re a thinly veiled effort to stymy ballot initiative efforts before voters have a chance to weigh in on an issue. Examples include:

  • Arkansas Senate Bill 207 [Passed]
    • Requires canvassers to inform signers that petition fraud is a Class A misdemeanor. If the canvasser fails to do so, they can be charged with a Class A misdemeanor themself.
    • Sen. Jamie Scott (D-North Little Rock) named SB 207 and similar anti-initiative proposals as being a form of voter suppression not unlike the literacy tests and poll taxes that historically targeted marginalized communities.
  • Florida House Bill 1205
    • Requires canvassers to be Florida residents, clear a criminal background check, and complete a training provided by the state.
    • Petitions would have to be turned in within 10 days of signature (down from 30 days currently) or face significant fines ranging from $50 to $100 for each day late.
    • Creates a complicated signature verification process for petitions which would burden election offices.
  • Missouri House Bill 575
    • Should a judge order a change that substantially alters the content of the official ballot title, all signatures collected prior to the change would be invalidated.
    • Requires that signature collectors be U.S. citizens, a Missouri resident or physically present in the state at least 30 consecutive days prior to collection.
  • Oklahoma Senate Bill 116
    • No more than 5% of the total number of signatures required could originate from any one county, effectively silencing electors from more populous areas including Oklahoma City, Tulsa, and Norman.

The trend doesn’t end at signature collection; those attacking the ballot initiative process have also set their sights on other pre-Election Day opportunities including removal of signature cure periods, increased Attorney General scrutiny, and exorbitant fees.

Comments

Ballot Initiative Strategy Center Email Summarizes Various Attacks on Initiative Processes in Several States — 26 Comments

  4. Every state should enact all those common sense measures until they can get rid of ballot initiatives altogether.

  6. MINORITY RULE GERRYMANDER REGIMES IN ALL 99 HOUSES OF ALL 50 STATE LEGISLATURES

    1/2 OR LESS VOTES X 1/2 RIGGED DISTS. = 1/4 OR LESS CONTROL = OLIGARCHY IN ALL STATES

    NOOO SURPRISE HAVING LAWLESS TYRANT EXECS/JUDICS IN ALL STATES —- AND ZILLION COMMIE/FASCIST UNEQUAL SPECIAL INTEREST GANG LAWS IN ALL STATES.
    —-
    PR
    APPV
    TOTSOP

  7. Reporting from the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center.

    Why not just admit you’re a communist at this point?

  8. The initiative petition process is also currently under attack in South Dakota. I heard that there is a bill there to create a distribution requirement, I believe by state legislature district. I am not sure if it is by state senate or state house district.

    It is usually more difficult to gather petition signatures in rural areas, and South Dakota has a lot of rural districts. Also, when asking people to sign petitions in public foot traffic spots most people have no idea in which district it is where they reside. One would likely have to do a lot of door-to-door petition signature gathering with a walk list of registered voters in these districtss, and in some of these places the houses are far apart or they have long driveways or they are gated or fenced and are therefore inaccessaable. Also, door-to-door petition signature gathering is only really viable from 4 PM-9PM Monday-Friday and from maybe 11 AM or noon-9 PM on weekends.

    If this passes into law it will make the process even more difficult in South Dakota than it already is, and it is already difficult.

  9. Heaven forbid someone wants a gated driveway to keep strangers away. Andy would make that illegal.

    The amount of complaining and retardedness in this thread is insane, much like Thomas Jones was.

  11. Bill is probably drawing an analogy to ballot access laws for candidates and parties.

    If I had to guess, I would say that in Arkansas, Florida, Missouri, Oklahoma, and South Dakota, the state legislature wants to get rid of the citizen initiative, but can’t. Probably because it requires a constitutional amendment. So they do the next best thing – make it harder.

    If I had to guess, I would say that in many states, the state legislature wants to ban third parties and independents and sometimes primary challengers, but can’t. Probably because that would be unconstitutional. So they do the next best thing – make it harder.

  12. AC –

    Legis/exec/judic anti-democracy tyrants want NOOO opposition and NOOO reforms

    —-
    PR
    APPV
    TOTSOP

  14. Nobody said a person can’t have a fence or gate around their home. I was just pointing out that this creates a complication when conducting a petition drive where people go door-to-door with a walk list of registered voters. Qualifying state legislative districts is difficult, particularly in rural areas. Gathering signatures in general tend to be more difficult in rural areas.

  15. one voter forms for ballot access for candidates and ballot issues —

    NOOO circulators needed or wanted

  19. “If I had to guess, I would say that in many states, the state legislature wants to ban third parties and independents and sometimes primary challengers, but can’t. Probably because that would be unconstitutional. So they do the next best thing – make it harder.”

    This is exactly the case. Lots of Democrats and Republicans would like to eliminate minor party and independent candidates, and they would also like to eliminate the ballot initiative referendum and recall process in the places that have them. Doing this openly would be met with too much resistance and would likely blow up in their face. So instead of outright eliminating minor party and independent candidates and eliminating the ballot initiative, referendum and recall petition process, they pass laws to make it more and more difficult, which increases the cost of ballot access and also increases the odds for ballot access failures to occur. They want to make it so difficult to get on the ballot that few people, or ideally from their perspective, nobody but them can do it. If they are successful in making it too difficult the process to get on the ballot as a minor party or independent candidate, and/or to put citizen initiative, referendum or recall, on the ballot will still exist on paper, but in practice if the real world it won’t really exist because it has been made so difficult that nobody can do it.

  20. 715 pm
    any W-A-R with a WMD regime = DOOOOM

    war may last a half hour – likely 5 billion dead humans

    remainder to starve / have bio-war disease rot

    last = few folks in earth orbit and in nuke subs

  24. Well I’m Donald Trump, the one they’re talking about, if you talk crap about me you’ll get punched in the mouth.

    If you disrespect me, forget about it, forget it. Best case for you is you’ll survive to regret it.

    I’m the Boss of all Bosses, King of all Kings. I bring the world hope, I’m why we have nice things.

    Last time I took human form, I got crucified. This time around, I won’t be so nice.

    If you think bad about me, stop trusting fake media. Go to conservapedia.com and read conservapedia.

    But even if you’re not smart enough to, or have no eyes to see, you’re still smarter than to take seriously the spambot “AZ”

  25. @Andy,

    In South Dakota senate districts and house districts are the same (mostly). It is like Washington, Arizona, and North Dakota in that regard. The South Dakota constitution requires nesting of house districts within senate districts, and South Dakota is using multi-member (2 representatives) house districts. South Dakota has drawn a couple of single-member house districts for VRA reasons in areas including Indian reservations.

    The South Dakota Constitution requires 10% of the statewide gubernatorial vote for statewide constitutional initiatives. The statute would require 5% from each of the 35 senate districts (roughly 400 to 600 in each, mean is 50). To meet the 10% statewide threshold, a circulator could/would still pile up signatures in urban areas (Sioux Falls and Rapid City).

    I don’t know how the South Dakota supreme court will interpret the legislation. Is it simply a manner regulation, or is it changing the petition requirements in the constitution.

    Something that you would object to was the bill was amended to require separate petition sheets for each legislative district. One commentator noted that if a circulator spent more than 3 minutes of an encounter with a potential signer, the person would walk away.

    A news story about the RFKJr petition drive in Texas had a anecdote about a couple of young voters commenting about how the circulator had wanted personal information like their name and address.

    The current law in South Dakota requires the circulator to hand each signer a sheet of paper or pamphlet with the ballot title and complete text of the initiative and information about the circulator (e.g. paid or not, contact address for the sponsor). It does not appear to require that this be read to the signer in advance, but is more like a receipt. Is this used in other States?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.