Key Threats & Potential Obstacles to 2024 Ballot Measure Victories
In the wake of significant ballot measure victories reflecting the power of the people,
opponents of specific initiatives and direct democracy at large are exploring paths to
challenge the successful measures. Such opponents include state lawmakers, elected
officials, business interests, and more. While a handful of legal challenges and legislative
threats have begun to trickle in, BISC anticipates that number will grow as effective dates
and legislative sessions approach.
Democracy: Elections, Government, and Judiciary
- Washington, D.C. Initiative 83: Ranked-Choice Voting and Open Primaries (CI)
- Implements ranked-choice voting to allow voters to rank up to five candidates according to their preference as well as permit any unaffiliated voter to vote in the primary election of their choosing.
- Legal Challenge: Initiative 83 was approved by nearly 73% of voters. However, its 2026 rollout is uncertain due to ongoing legal challenges and the D.C. Council’s decision on funding.
Economic Justice
- Missouri Proposition A: Minimum Wage and Paid Sick Leave (CI)
- Missouri will gradually increase the state’s minimum wage by $1.25 per hour each year until 2026, when the minimum wage would be $15.00 per hour and adjust thereafter based on changes in the Consumer Price Index each January beginning in 2027. Workers will also earn one hour of paid sick leave for every thirty hours worked.
- The initial minimum wage increase to $13.75/hour is now in effect as of January 1, 2025.
- McCarty, et al. v. Missouri Secretary of State, et al.: Originally filed by business interest groups that were ultimately dismissed by the Missouri Supreme Court, the lawsuit seeks to overturn the voter-approved Proposition A. The remaining individual plaintiffs argue that because the labor justice measure increases minimum wage and allows workers to earn paid sick leave, it violates the state’s single-subject rule for ballot initiatives. The Missouri state supreme court appointed County Circuit Judge Josh Devine as a commissioner to review the evidence and report his findings by February 10. Notably, Prop. A opponents filed the lawsuit one month after it was overwhelmingly passed by Missouri voters rather than prior to Election Day, for example during the qualification or ballot finalization phases.
- Legislative Threats: So far, seven bills have been filed to curtail the effects of Prop. A:
- One to overturn Prop. A entirely — removing workers’ right to earn paid sick leave and reinstating the previous minimum wage of $12.30/hour,
- One to exempt small and seasonal businesses from increasing their minimum wage,
- One to delay the second increase to $15/hour,
- Two that would exempt employees under 18 or 20 years old from minimum wage increases beyond the 2024 rate of $12.30/hour,
- One to delay workers’ right to earn paid sick leave from May 1, 2025 to January 1, 2026,
- One to repeal the ability to raise the minimum wage in the future to keep up with inflation.
- Missouri will gradually increase the state’s minimum wage by $1.25 per hour each year until 2026, when the minimum wage would be $15.00 per hour and adjust thereafter based on changes in the Consumer Price Index each January beginning in 2027. Workers will also earn one hour of paid sick leave for every thirty hours worked.
Healthcare
- Nebraska Initiative 437: Medical Cannabis Legalization and Nebraska Initiative 438: Medical Cannabis Regulation
- The related initiatives respectively legalize possession of up to five ounces of cannabis for medical purposes with a written recommendation from a health care practitioner and establish a Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission to regulate its use. The purchase of medical cannabis in Nebraska will remain illegal until the now-authorized Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission is able to write rules and regulations by the July 1, 2025 deadline.
- Kuehn v. Evnen, et al.: Nebraska Secretary of State Bob Evnen and former state senator John Kuehn are suing to nullify the voter-approved medical cannabis legalization and regulation ballot measures, Initiatives 437 and 438. Opponents of the measures have argued that neither should have qualified for the ballot due to evidence of signature fraud on some of the petitions. Though a district court judge previously ruled that the petitions were valid, the Nebraska Supreme Court agreed to take up the appeal. Kuehn has since amended his lawsuit to add several parties. The additions are a strategy to stop the individuals tasked with implementing the laws from doing so.
- The three commissioners of the Nebraska Liquor Control Commission who will serve on the new Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission.
- State Treasurer Tom Briese and Tax Commissioner Jim Kamm, who will oversee the new collection of sales taxes on medical cannabis.
- CEO Steve Corsi of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, whose department handles oversight of medical practitioners.
- Kuehn v. Pillen, et al.: An unsuccessful last-minute lawsuit by former state senator John Kuehn sought to block Gov. Pillen from declaring by December 12 the success of Initiatives 437 and 438, as required by Nebraska law. Kuehn argued that the overwhelmingly popular, voter-approved measures violate the Nebraska and U.S. constitutions, and as such the governor could not be compelled to declare them as state law.
Reproductive Freedom
- Arizona Prop. 139: Right to Abortion
- Creates a constitutional right to an abortion up until the point of viability, with exceptions for the life and physical or mental health of the pregnant person.
- Legislative Threat: Prop. 139 expressly prohibited government interference in abortion rights before fetal viability. However, HB2681 proposes an unnecessary burden for abortion providers and their patients by requiring in-person exams and in-person follow-up appointments.
- Maryland Question 1: Right to Reproductive Freedom
- Enshrined in their state constitution’s Declaration of Rights the essential freedoms to access abortion, contraception, and other reproductive health services.
- Legislative Threat: Carried over from the 2024 legislative session, a bill seeks to ban abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected.
- Missouri Amendment 3: Right to Reproductive Freedom
- Prohibits the government from denying or interfering with a person’s fundamental right to reproductive freedom (including abortion, childbirth, IVF, contraception, and more) up until the point of fetal viability. Thereafter, an abortion is permitted if advised by a healthcare professional to protect the life or physical/mental health of the patient.
- Legal Victory: Immediately following the success of Amendment 3, Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Planned Parenthood Great Rivers filed a lawsuit challenging Missouri’s various TRAP laws. All have been temporarily blocked by a circuit court judge, and a January 2026 court date has been set to decide whether to block them permanently.
- Legislative Threats: Though the Missouri House Majority Leader previously said his party would respect the will of the voters, legislators have already filed over a dozen proposals to limit the effects of the abortion rights amendment — or overturn it altogether, including:
- Thirteen bills would ask voters to ban abortions with very limited exceptions,
- Three joint resolutions would ask voters to amend the state constitution to define life as beginning at conception, effectively classifying abortion as murder and endangering in vitro fertilization,
- Two joint resolutions would ask voters to ban abortions after a heartbeat is detected,
- Two bills assert that the U.S. Constitution prohibits abortion, thus the Missouri state constitution can’t allow it either.
- Montana CI-128: Right to Abortion
- Affirms the state’s constitutional right to make decisions about one’s pregnancy, including the right to abortion up to the point of viability.
- Legislative Threat: Immediately following CI-128’s success on Election Day, Rep. Lee Deming (R) filed a bill draft request for a constitutional amendment to define “person” as beginning at conception or fertilization, effectively classifying abortion as murder and endangering in vitro fertilization. Another bill, If passed, would ask voters to approve a constitutional amendment that defines “person” as beginning at fertilization or conception. HB 316, which would effectively classify abortion as murder if passed on the ballot, received its first committee hearing on February 5.
State of Legislative Attacks on the Ballot Measure Process
2025 Attacks on Direct Democracy
BISC is currently tracking 171 pieces of legislation related to direct democracy, at least 90 of which seek to limit the People’s Tool. Lawmakers opposed to direct democracy are again trying to limit the People’s Tool and have already filed dozens of bills attacking the ballot initiative process. See below for a selection of notable examples. As 2025 legislative sessions move forward, BISC will continue to track legislation affecting direct democracy as part of our critical work to Defend Direct Democracy.
- Florida
- In his call for a 2025 special session, Gov. DeSantis is asking legislators to crack down on citizen-led ballot initiatives. His requests include prohibiting standard signature collection, authorizing the Secretary of State to de-certify an initiative if that person determines that there aren’t enough valid signatures, and requiring that an initiative’s fiscal impact statement be drafted solely by the governor’s appointees.
- Idaho
- House Bill 2 would require ballot initiatives to earn at least 60% of the vote in order to pass.
- Missouri
- House Joint Resolution 68 would require citizen-initiated constitutional amendments to earn votes equal to at least half of the total registered voters in the state. Essentially, that means every voter who doesn’t turn out to vote in a particular year or chooses not to vote on an issue would effectively be counted as a “No” vote.
- House Joint Resolution 10 would prohibit spending from foreign governments or foreign political parties, increases signature-gathering requirements, and requires that citizen-led initiatives earn the votes from both a majority of voters and a majority of congressional districts (legislatively-referred will still need only a simple majority).
- Senate Bill 152 would prohibit foreign spending on ballot measures, even to the point that a donor has to certify that they haven’t received >$100k from foreign entities in the past four years.
- House Bill 414 would prohibit anyone but the legislature or the Missouri Secretary of State from making edits to an LRCA’s ballot language
- Montana
- Senate Bill 13 would replace the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction for ballot review with District Court jurisdiction, likely due to a years-long legislative campaign to weaken Montana Supreme Court power over allegations that its justices are too liberal.
- Senate Bill 47 would require legislative committee review of a ballot initiative after its deemed legally sufficient by the courts. This probably stems from the Montana Supreme Court ruling that the 2024 abortion rights measure CI-128 wasn’t subject to review by a legislative committee, despite the demands of GOP legislators.
- South Dakota
- House Joint Resolution 5003 would require constitutional amendments to receive 60% of the vote to pass. The bill has already passed in the House and is now up for consideration in the South Dakota Senate.
- Utah
- Senate Bill 73 would hold citizen-proposed state statutes to the same standard as legislatively-referred constitutional amendments by requiring campaigns to publish initiative text in at least one newspaper in every Utah county. At an estimated cost of $1.4 million, such a requirement would make it all but impossible for citizens and grassroots campaigns to lead a ballot initiative effort.
- Senate Joint Resolution 2 would require any initiative that would raise taxes to receive at least 60% voter approval.
Why are these attacks happening?
The national fight over ballot measures began to pick up around a decade ago when a coordinated push happened across the country to use the ballot initiative process to expand Medicaid and enact other popular, progressive policies that fare well with voters across the political spectrum. We have seen another steep escalation in legislatively-referred attacks since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and voters in Red, Blue, and Purple states have been using the power of direct democracy to enshrine reproductive freedom into their state constitutions.
In 2015, BISC began implementing a proactive, long-term strategy co-created with state leaders and grassroots organizers to achieve progressive policy wins and build lasting, equitable power on the ground through ballot initiatives. We’ve been successful, so it’s no surprise that we’ve been seeing a steep rise in ballot measure process bills in state legislatures.