Progressives and populists created the initiative process a century ago to wrest control of state policy decisions from wealthy special interest groups.
Many of the landmark victories of the early 20th century began as ballot initiatives: women were given the right to vote before passage of the 19th Amendment, the minimum wage was increased, and an eight-hour workday was established. Over the years, however, use of the ballot initiative process declined.
Ironically, wealthy special interest groups have dominated the initiative process for most of the past 25 years. In 1978, anti-tax crusaders in California sponsored and passed Proposition 13. The Reagan victory of 1980 allowed right-wing economic, corporate and social organizations to launch a coordinated ballot initiative attack on the working and middle classes that continues today. The right has used ballot measures to promote an extremist agenda: so-called “paycheck protection” initiatives used to silence the voices of working families; anti-affirmative action initiatives that turn back the clock on civil rights; anti-choice initiatives that place more restrictions on women’s reproductive health rights; anti-environmental initiatives that empower polluters; anti-gay initiatives that sanction discrimination; and voucher initiatives that siphon public funds from public schools.
In recent elections, however, progressives have taken the offensive with ballot initiatives.
In November 2004, progressives used ballot initiatives to increase the minimum wage in Florida and Nevada, approve stemcell research in California, legalize medical marijuana in Montana, promote renewable energy in Colorado and ban nuclear waste dumping in Washington. In recent years, ballot initiatives have established public financing for candidates in Arizona, Maine and Massachusetts; promoted renewable energy and protected open spaces in California, Colorado and Utah; and increased funding for public education in Washington and Oklahoma.[1]
The primary problem in the initiative process is that state laws tend to give wealthy special interests the advantage.
Contrary to popular belief, the influence of money—not the structure of the process—is compromising the integrity of ballot initiatives. Wealthy interests have huge sums of money to spend on professional signature gatherers to place virtually any measure on the ballot. In many states, wealthy interests can hide the sources of their ballot initiative funding. And wealthy interests can spend whatever it takes to communicate deceitful messages to voters about the merits of a ballot measure.
States can level the playing field by making the signature gathering process more fair.
Wealthy interests have an advantage because they can buy petition signatures through professional signature gathering companies. Maine, North Dakota and Oregon require signature gatherers to be paid by the hour rather than by the signature, which reduces the likelihood of fraud. States can also require that signature gatherers be registered voters in the state, as Maine does.
States can require initiative funding disclosure.
Wealthy individuals and organizations regularly spend millions of dollars to qualify and pass ballot measures.[2]
Knowing which individuals and groups are funding an initiative helps voters understand the motives behind the measure—who stands to benefit and who might be adversely affected. Unfortunately, the financial disclosure requirements for ballot measures are much weaker than those for candidates. States can hold ballot measure committees accountable by requiring full disclosure in a timely manner.
States can make the process more fair by ensuring accurate ballot language.
Because wealthy interests have the advantage in buying campaign advertising and their ads often misrepresent an initiative’s effect, it is important that the official language on the ballot accurately describes the question to voters. Colorado’s ballot title process is a model for reform. After initiative language has been filed with the Secretary of State, it is forwarded to a ballot title-setting board where there are several opportunities for proponent and opponent feedback, challenges and appeals. The general consensus in the state is that the language of Colorado’s initiative petitions is fair, clear and accurate.
States can take several steps to improve citizen knowledge of ballot measures.
Voters need objective information about initiatives. Voters can be better informed if states
Establish a clearinghouse of ballot initiative information in the Secretary of State’s office—
The clearinghouse would make available pro and con statements from voter guides, as well as news stories, editorials and TV clips about each initiative.
Publicize fiscal impact statements for ballot measures—
Informing voters of the real budgetary impacts would go a long way toward making the process more fair. This practice is already employed in 12 states.
Create voter guides that include a summary of each initiative and its full text, as well as a straightforward explanation of what each measure would do—
Several states, including California and Colorado, distribute voter guides that explain ballot measures.
This policy brief relies in large part on information from the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center.
Model Legislation
Ballot Initiative Integrity Act
Summary: The Ballot Initiative Integrity Act requires that petition circulators be state voters and compensated on an hourly, not per-signature, basis.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE
This Act shall be called the “Ballot Initiative Integrity Act.”
SECTION 2. BALLOT INITIATIVE INTEGRITY
After section XXX, the following new section XXX shall be inserted:
(A) PROHIBITIONS
1. No person shall pay or receive payment for circulating an initiative or referendum petition where payment is based on the number of signatures collected.
2. No person shall pay or receive payment for causing others to circulate an initiative or referendum petition where payment is based on the number of signatures collected.
3 Nothing in this section shall prohibit payment for signature gathering which is not based, either directly or indirectly, on the number of signatures gathered.
4. No initiative or referendum petition shall be circulated by a person who is not a registered voter of this state.
5. No person shall pay another person for services as a circulator of an initiative or referendum petition if the circulator is not a registered voter of this state.
(B) ENFORCEMENT
1. The [State Board of Elections/Secretary of State] shall not accept or certify any initiative or referendum petitions that were collected by a person who received payment for the collection of signatures based on the number of signatures collected, or who is not a registered voter of this state.
2. Any person who willfully violates this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in prison and a fine of up to $5,000.
3. Any person who willfully swears that initiative or referendum signatures were circulated in accordance with this section, but who knows that information to be false, shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison and a fine of up to $20,000.
SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Act shall take effect on July 1, 20XX.
Ballot Measure Campaign Disclosure Act
Summary: The Ballot Measure Campaign Disclosure Act requires all persons, groups, or entities that fund ballot measure campaigns to register and provide full financial disclosure in a timely, accurate manner.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE
This Act shall be called the “Ballot Measure Campaign Disclosure Act.”
SECTION 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE
(A) FINDINGS—
The legislature finds that:
1. Ballot measure campaigns wield significant influence on state policy.
2. Current campaign disclosure laws are less sufficient for ballot measure campaigns than they are for political candidate campaigns.
3. Accurate and timely disclosure of fundraising and spending is especially important because there is no limit on contributions to ballot measure campaigns.
4. Stronger disclosure requirements are particularly important because soft money contributions, banned from federal campaigns, are being diverted to fund ballot measure campaigns.
(B) PURPOSE—
This law is enacted to improve the democratic process for the adoption or defeat of ballot measures by providing crucial information to the public in a timely, accessible manner.
SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS
After subsection XXX, the following new subsection XXX shall be inserted:
“Ballot measure” means an initiative, referendum, ballot question, or any matter on the ballot other than the election of a candidate to public office.
SECTION 4. BALLOT MEASURE CAMPAIGN REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS
After subsection XXX, the following new subsection XXX shall be inserted:
In addition to all other registration requirements, the following requirements shall apply to ballot measure campaigns:
1. Within ten days of first collecting or spending $100 or more in an attempt to place a measure on the ballot, or to support or oppose a ballot measure, a person, group or entity shall register with the [Board of Elections] as a ballot measure committee. However, if it is within 30 days of Election Day when the measure appears on the ballot, the person, group or entity shall register as a ballot measure committee within 24 hours of collecting or spending $100 or more.
2. If a ballot measure committee registers before a ballot measure number/letter is assigned by the [Board of Elections], the registration shall clearly describe the nature of the ballot measure and whether the committee supports or opposes such measure. If a ballot measure committee registers after a ballot measure number/letter is assigned by the [Board of Elections], the registration shall list that number/letter and whether the committee supports or opposes such measure.
SECTION 5. BALLOT MEASURE CAMPAIGN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
After subsection XXX, the following new subsection XXX shall be inserted:
In addition to all other reporting requirements, the following requirements shall apply to every ballot measure committee:
1. After registering with the [Board of Elections], a ballot measure committee shall file a campaign disclosure report, as described in [citation], within ten days of the end of each calendar quarter.
2. If a ballot measure committee receives a contribution of $1,000 or more between the closing date of the last pre-election disclosure report and Election Day, the committee shall disclose that contribution within 48 hours of receipt in a manner designated by the [Board of Elections].
3. In each campaign disclosure report, a ballot measure committee shall list, for any donation of $100 or more, the occupation and employer of an individual, or the nature of business of a contributor that is not an individual.
4. If a ballot measure committee files a campaign disclosure report before a ballot measure number/letter is assigned by the [Board of Elections], the report shall clearly describe the nature of the ballot measure, and whether the committee supports or opposes such measure. If a ballot measure committee files a campaign disclosure report after a ballot measure number/letter is assigned by the [Board of Elections], the report shall list that number/letter and whether the committee supports or opposes such measure.
5. If a ballot measure committee collects, spends, or expects to collect or spend over $10,000 throughout the ballot measure campaign, the committee shall file all financial disclosure reports electronically, in such form as the [Board of Elections] directs.
SECTION 6. BALLOT MEASURE CAMPAIGN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
After subsection XXX, the following new subsection XXX shall be inserted:
The [Board of Elections] shall make all registration forms and campaign finance reports for ballot measure committees easily accessible, searchable and sortable through the Internet.
SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Act shall take effect on July 1, 2006.
[1] Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, “2004 Election Results: Ballot Initiative & Referendum,” November 2004.
[2] Ballot Initiative Strategy Center Foundation, “The Campaign Finance Reform Blind Spot,” 2002.