Politico highlights something California voters saw for the first time this year: 5 supporters and 5 opponents for each ballot measure, right on the ballot.
Category Archives: direct democracy
6th Circuit Issues Decision in Brown v. Yost
The Sixth Circuit (with one concurrence) has ended the appeal of the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction on grounds of mootness.
Background from the opinion, “This appeal arises from a ballot proposal initiated by Cynthia Brown. In February 2023, she sought to amend the Ohio Constitution to eliminate governmental immunities or defenses in certain state-law causes of action. That month, she submitted her proposed amendment and summary to the Attorney General. He rejected the summary as not ‘fair and truthful.’ In total, she has tried and failed eight times to obtain his approval.
[After unsuccessful efforts in the state courts,] Brown turned to federal court for relief. She sued the Attorney General in district court, alleging that Ohio’s initiative procedures violate the First Amendment facially and as applied” and applied for a preliminary injunction. The district court denied that motion and she appeal.
“Arizonans Defeat Three GOP Measures That Would Have Restricted Their Voting Power”
Republican lawmakers in Arizona placed a slew of constitutional amendments on the ballot this fall to limit the recourse available to voters to hold politicians and courts accountable and to take matters into their own hands. Arizonans on Tuesday rejected those proposals.
They voted down Prop 137, which would have largely ended judicial elections in the state and frozen in place the state supreme court’s current conservative majority. They also rejected Prop 134 and 136, which would have severely limited direct democracy by making it far tougher to qualify a measure for the ballot.
All three measures lost handily, with Prop 137 going down by the largest margin. With some ballots remaining to be counted, it trails 77 to 23 percent as of publication.
Arizonans on the same day approved an initiative to protect abortion in the state, overturning a 15-week ban GOP lawmakers adopted in 2022. This measure was placed on the ballot through a citizen-led effort, precisely the sort of organizing that would have become prohibitively difficult in the future if Prop 134 and 136 had passed.
“Anti-Gerrymandering Groups Warn That Ohio’s Ballot Language Is Misleading Voters”
New at Bolts.
Federal District Court Issues TRO Barring the State of Florida from Threatening TV Stations That Air Advertising Supporting Abortion Rights Amendment
By threatening criminal proceedings for broadcasting a “political advertisement claiming that current Florida law does not allow physicians to perform abortions necessary to preserve the lives and health of pregnant women,” ECF No. 1-1 at 2, Defendant has engaged in viewpoint discrimination. The letter sent by the Department of Health to broadcasters claimed that Plaintiff’s ad violated Florida’s sanitary nuisance statute because, “if believed, [it] would likely have a detrimental effect on the lives and health of pregnant women in Florida.” Id. at 3. Defendant would not be able to conclude that the ad may have a detrimental effect on the lives and health of pregnant women in Florida without reference to the particular view taken by the speaker—namely, that “Florida has now banned abortion even in cases like mine.” Id. at 2, n.1.
Even if the Department of Health’s actions here did not amount to viewpoint discrimination, where a government uses the “threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion . . . to achieve the suppression” of disfavored speech, it functionally creates “a system of prior administrative restraints” that bears “a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.” Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 67, 70 (1963). A government official “cannot do indirectly what [he] is barred from doing directly: . . . coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on [his] behalf.” Nat’l Rifle Ass’n v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175 (2024). The present case bears all the hallmarks of unconstitutional coercion that the Supreme Court identified in Bantam Books and Vullo.
“Missouri High Court Restores Abortion Measure to Ballot”
The Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a bid to strike a question on the November ballot that will ask voters whether to establish a right to abortion in the State Constitution.
The seven-member court handed down its one-page ruling less than three hours before the state’s deadline for printing ballots for absentee voters. The ruling capped a furious few days of legal maneuvers, as anti-abortion groups and state Republicans made a last-ditch effort to stop the ballot amendment.
“Today’s decision is a victory for both direct democracy and reproductive freedom in Missouri,” Rachel Sweet, the campaign manager for the coalition backing the measure, Missourians for Constitutional Freedom. “This fight was not just about this amendment, it was about defending the integrity of the initiative petition process and ensuring that Missourians can shape their future directly.”
The four anti-abortion advocates who tried to strike the measure said in a statement that the court had “turned a blind eye” to their arguments that abortion-rights groups did not follow constitutional procedures when they circulated petitions to sponsor the amendment.
“Police are questioning Florida voters about signing an abortion rights ballot petition”
State police are showing up at Florida voters’ homes to question them about signing a petition to get an abortion rights amendment on the ballot in November, and a state health care agency has launched a website targeting the ballot initiative with politically charged language.
Critics say they’re the latest efforts by Florida’s Republican elected officials to leverage state resources to try to block the abortion rights measure, moves which some Democratic officials argue could violate state laws against voter intimidation.
“Ron (DeSantis) has repeatedly used state power to interfere with a citizen-led process to get reproductive freedom on the ballot,” Florida Democratic Party Chair Nikki Fried told reporters on Monday. “This is their latest desperate attempt before Election Day.”
The ballot initiative known as Amendment 4 would enshrine abortion rights in Florida law. If approved by 60% of voters, the procedure would remain legal until the fetus is viable, as determined by the patient’s health care provider….
Isaac Menasche, one of nearly a million people who signed the petition to get the measure on the ballot, said a law enforcement officer knocked on his door last week in Lee County in southwest Florida to ask him about signing it.
The officer said the questioning was part of an investigation into alleged petition fraud, the Tampa Bay Times reported.
“I’m not a person who is going out there protesting for abortion,” Menasche told the newspaper. “I just felt strongly, and I took the opportunity when the person asked me to say, ‘Yeah, I’ll sign that petition.’”
“They didn’t submit a photocopy that wasn’t required; Why abortion won’t be on the Arkansas ballot in November”
I missed this from Adam Unikowsky back on Aug. 25:
On August 22, 2024, the Arkansas Supreme Court held, by a 4-3 vote, that an abortion-rights ballot initiative would not appear on the 2024 ballot. Why? It’s a confusing decision, but boiled down, it’s because when the ballot initiative sponsor submitted its petition on the due date, it failed to staple a photocopy of a document it had already submitted a week earlier. The court reached this conclusion even though (a) nothing in Arkansas law requires this photocopy to be stapled; and (b) even if this requirement existed, Arkansas law is clear that the failure to staple this photocopy is curable, and the sponsor immediately cured the asserted defect.
The Arkansas Supreme Court’s decision is wrong. Moreover, the proceedings in this case make clear that Arkansas state officials are unapologetically engaging in viewpoint discrimination, interpreting the law in one way for ballot initiatives sponsored by conservative groups and in the opposite way for ballot initiatives sponsored by progressive groups….
“Morning Digest: The Utah GOP wants the power to overturn citizens’ ballot initiatives”
Utah’s Republican-dominated legislature voted on Wednesday to place a constitutional amendment on the general election ballot that would explicitly allow lawmakers to amend or repeal voter-approved initiatives―including a 2018 measure that could put an end to partisan gerrymandering.
Republicans called a special session just weeks after the state Supreme Court unanimously ruled that legislators had acted improperly when they gutted the redistricting reform initiative voters passed six years ago. While the justice did not strike down the state’s congressional map, which was designed to ensure that Republicans would control all four of Utah’s U.S. House seats, an attorney for the plaintiffs expressed optimism that new districts could be drawn in time for the 2026 elections.
The GOP, however, is now asking Utahns to amend the state constitution so that the legislature can rewrite or overturn such citizen-sponsored initiatives. The Republican amendment, which needs only a simple majority to pass, also contains a separate provision that would bar foreign entities from contributing money to state initiative campaigns.
The inclusion of that seemingly unrelated ban is central to the GOP’s strategy of convincing voters to cede some of their own power. Republicans have engaged in similar chicanery in Missouri, where the practice is known as stuffing an amendment with “ballot candy“—sweeteners the Kansas City Star defined as “inserting unrelated but popular ideas into a measure to encourage people to vote in favor of it.”
The term does not appear to have caught on outside the Show Me State, though as Utah’s legislature demonstrated on Wednesday, Republicans across the nation understand the tactic.
“Direct Democracy Scores a Win in Michigan’s High Court. Can It Survive November?”
Bolts Magazine: Michigan’s Republican legislature’s seemingly duplicitous strategy to get around progressive ballot measures struck down by the state’s high court.
“Michigan progressives gathered enough signatures in 2018 to put two labor measures on the ballot: one to raise the minimum wage, another to mandate paid sick time for employees. Republican lawmakers, who ran the state at that time, thwarted the proposals with a brazen two-step maneuver. Before the measures were put before voters, they adopted legislation that enacted both into law exactly as organizers had drafted them; this eliminated them from the ballot. But once Election Day passed, lawmakers reconvened and gutted the laws they had just passed, all but erasing organizers’ work.”
Once again, the stakes were policies that are good for workers: a $2 increase in the minimum wage and paid sick leave for all employees. I have blogged about various attempts by Republican legislatures to undermine direct democracy, but this is a new one. The article is worth a read, pointing out that Utah’s Supreme Court has also taken a stand in favor of direct democracy.
“Legal fight continues with appeals over proposed immigration initiative for Arizona Nov. 5 ballot”
AP:
The fight to keep a proposed border initiative off Arizona’s Nov. 5 ballot is not over yet.
Immigrant advocates kept the issue alive this week by filing notice to the state Supreme Court that they will appeal the judge’s ruling.
A Maricopa County Superior Court judge on July 12 rejected an effort by the advocates to keep the proposed initiative off the ballot. The advocates argue that the measure breaks the rules because it deals with more than a single subject.
“Alaska election officials to recalculate signatures for ranked vote repeal measure after court order”
AP:
A state court judge on Friday disqualified numerous booklets used to gather signatures for an initiative that aims to repeal Alaska’s ranked choice voting system and gave elections officials a deadline to determine if the measure still had sufficient signatures to qualify for the November ballot.
The decision by Superior Court Judge Christina Rankin in Anchorage comes in a lawsuit brought by three voters that seeks to disqualify the repeal measure from the ballot.
…. Rankin set a Wednesday deadline for the division to remove the signatures and booklets she found should be disqualified and for the division [of elections] to determine if the measure still has sufficient signatures to qualify for the ballot.
Utah Supreme Court Rules for League of Women Voters in Case to Reinstate Nonpartisan Redistricting Initiative
Here’s the opinion in League of Women Voters v. Utah State Legislature (h/t Ballot Access News). A key excerpt:
The novel question before us asks: what happens when Utahns use their initiative power to exercise their “right to alter or reform their government” by passing an initiative that contains government reforms, and the Legislature repeals it and replaces it with another law that eliminates the reforms the people voted for? . . . .
[W]e hold that when Utahns exercise their right to reform the government through a citizen initiative, their exercise of these rights is protected from government infringement. This means that government-reform initiatives are constitutionally protected from unfettered legislative amendment, repeal, or replacement. Although the Legislature has authority to amend or repeal statutes, it is well settled that legislative action cannot unduly infringe or restrain the exercise of constitutional rights. Consequently, when Utahns exercise their right to reform the government through an initiative, this limits the Legislature’s authority to amend or repeal the initiative. . . .
In this case, Plaintiffs claim. . . that Utahns used their initiative power as a means of exercising their right to reform the government when they passed Proposition 4. And they claim that the Legislature violated those rights when it enacted S.B. 200, which repealed Proposition 4 and replaced it with a new law that nullified Proposition 4’s key provisions. The Legislature’s general legislative power to amend, repeal, and enact statutes does not defeat this claim as a matter of law.
Update: The AP has this story, with more background on yesterday’s decision.
“Federal appeals court to reconsider case affecting Attorney General Dave Yost’s authority to block proposed ballot issues”
A federal appeals court will reconsider a recent decision that could affect Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost’s ability to block future proposed ballot-issue campaigns via a state law that gives his office authority to sign off on proposed language that those campaigns must circulate with petitions to qualify for the ballot.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision late last month, ordered Yost to approve petition language for a proposed state constitutional amendment that would make it easier for Ohioans to sue police for misconduct. Yost, a Republican, had repeatedly rejected petition language proposed by backers of the Protecting Ohioans Constitutional Rights amendment for numerous reasons, including the amendment’s proposed title.
But the appeals court announced on Monday that enough of the court’s judges had voted to perform what’s called an en banc review, in which every judge on the court votes on a case, and not just the randomly selected three judges that issue an initial decision. The broader review will replace the previous decision, issued by two judges appointed by Democratic presidents.
My earlier coverage is here.