Ballot Initiative Reform

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.

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 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Voters need objective information about initiatives. Voters can be better informed if states